Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Happy autumn all! For my holiday read this year I chose JAH's Private Life of Edward IV. Now whilst I think some of it is not his proudest moment, I was drawn to the chapter on Elizabeth Wayte, as one of the candidates is Elizabeth Skilling, probably sister of the 1483 rebel Michael (her grandfather Michael was a judge). It began as a bit of a fun search but ended, like everything to do with Richard, going in a totally different direction.

I did manage to find an Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, tucked away in an inheritance dispute in an early sixteenth century document. She was probably the daughter of Thomas, son of Robert Wayte and would have been about the right age had Arthur been born in the 1470s or 1480s. She had married a cousin of MB. So, like JAH, I still think that Elizabeth Skilling, as wife, not daughter of another Thomas Wayte is a good contender. Why? Well she fits very nicely with the profile of Edwards other 'seductions' - she's older than him (about 7 years), she's married, she's rich, she's feisty (see the later document) - and she's a Lancastrian, the ultimate challenge.

That she was not to be messed with is visible in the document below:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9736631

the final sentence is intriguing. Thomas Hampton from Southampton was a brother of Henry VI's esquire and father in law to another rebel William Frost. He was probably a lawyer and cousin to 'our' John Hampton, Stillington's son in law.

JAH says Elizabeth had no children by her first husband but she did - two. Joan, who was married to Sir John Speke and Agnes, firstly to John Wydeslely from another family of lawyers, and then, as his second wife, to Sir William Stonor. She features in the Stonor papers and died in 1481, probably as a result of childbirth. Hence she does not appear in her mother's will. Joan probably did the same.

Sir William Stonor, another 1483 rebel, was a friend of EW. And the rest of the trail leads us back to Yatton, the home of Sir John Newton and Isabel Cheddar, where the Wayte coat of arms is displayed on the church wall. In fact most of these people appear in deeds and documents associated with the Newtons and Chokkes. Our forger friend, Thomas Burton, half-brother of Ankarette Twynyho even witnesses one.

So did Stillington also know about Elizabeth Wayte? Arthur was not proclaimed publicly until 1502. Was this to seal his fate as a bastard, not a contender?

It's intriguing to wonder whether there had been an earlier promise to Elizabeth Wayte, who was still alive in 1483. It was convenient that Eleanor was dead, but a living 'wife' with a child of age who was the potential heir was a whole different kettle of fish. Perhaps that's why it was chosen to disregard her?

What is tells me is that the Wayte story is no lightweight thing and needs a lot more work. H

Nico



On Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 09:55:02 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

Hi Nico, sorry should have clarified more:
JAH agrees with the conclusions that 'Elizabeth Lucy', mother of Arthur,  did not exist and that she was really Elizabeth Wayte, identified originally by Buck as daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire. No-one had found an Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, but there was one as I discovered from a deed in TNA about her children's inheritance. Confusingly, there were two Thomas Waytes, probably cousins. The other Thomas Wayte had a wife called Elizabeth Skilling who was married firstly to John Wynnard, a Mercer and Alderman of London who died in 1468. The petition you mention is assumed to be dated 1462, so Elizabeth certainly wasn't a widow under the guardianship of the king. This Elizabeth is the one who fits exactly the profile of Edward's other conquests.
What is also interesting is that she moves in exactly the same home circles as Eleanor Talbot, Stillington, and a number of our 1483 rebels. I need to look again at these because whereas we assume that the Salisbury and Exeter rebels were probably discontented about trade etc, it could well be that the tentacles of the Woodvilles had reached there as well via, amongst others, the Stonors. The other interesting thing is that Elizabeth S spent most of her time in London and died there in 1487 - she left a lot of bequests to London churches. So she would have been right at the centre of things. And she would have been rich.
I'm still trying for find why Hampton was in the Fleet. He appears quite a bit in the Stonor Papers, where he seems to be acting as a lawyer in another inheritance dispute. He died in Southampton in October 1483 but his name appears on deeds with those of other 1483 rebels. My guess is that his age (about 68) probably excluded his own participation.
Hope this helps. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 14:13
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
The phrase 'ye kynges wydowe' is certainly intriguing. Maybe it was a nickname that she acquired because her reputation as a cast off mistress of the King, but it is unusual that it found its way into a legal document - suggesting that she was widely known as 'ye kynges wydowe.'  It sounds a bit sarcastic or mocking, but it could have been encouraged by her.  Did she feel bitter and blab about Edward promising to marry her?   Widow/wydowe is an interesting word in light of the precontract story and so is the date, 1462, being so early in Edward's reign. The Eleanor Talbot marriage was alleged to have been in 1461, so for Elizabeth Winnard to be called the 'kynges wydowe' in 1462 suggests that he was involved with her around the same time or before.

It would not surprise me at all  if Eleanor Talbot was not the only 'precontract,' and had Elizabeth Woodville not had such powerful family, who looked each other's interests, she may have ended up lost to history as another one.  I suspect that Edward was an impulsive, egotistical young man with a sense of entitlement and a attraction to older women, but was reckless rather than malicious, unaware that what he thought was a great seduction technique was actually canonically and legally binding. If he was doing this, who was first: Elizabeth or Eleanor (or even someone else)?
Consider this scenario: Edward secretly promises to marry Elizabeth then sleeps with her (maybe even before he becomes King).  Eventually she has an illegitimate child.  Then he does the same with Eleanor shortly after he becomes King.  Both women find out about each other and realize that he has no intention of making either of them his Queen.  If Elizabeth was first in time, Eleanor's 'marriage' would have been invalid.  This may explain why neither Eleanor nor her family ever challenged Edward, especially after she was paid off with the lands suggested by JAH.  As for Elizabeth, in her anger, she may have complained bitterly within her social circle, and people - whether they believed the story or not started calling her the 'kynges wydowe.'  Eventually, she may have been paid off and her child (Arthur? Elizabeth?) well provided for, so the notoriety died down, but was perhaps remembered and talked about occasionally in those circles, eventually reaching Stillington.  Eleanor was mentioned regarding the precontract, so maybe her family did confirm the story privately.
The Private Life of Edward IV is next on my list, so I haven't read JAH's list of candidates.  I'm a bit confused about which Elizabeth is which:- Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte. 
- Elizabeth Skilling wife of Thomas Wayte.Which one is the Elizabeth Wynard in the document?  Is there any more detail as to why Hampton was in the Fleet Prison on the King's orders?  Is there any record of when she married Wynard?

Nico

Hilary wrote:

Happy autumn all! For my holiday read this year I chose JAH's Private Life of Edward IV. Now whilst I think some of it is not his proudest moment, I was drawn to the chapter on Elizabeth Wayte, as one of the candidates is Elizabeth Skilling, probably sister of the 1483 rebel Michael (her grandfather Michael was a judge). It began as a bit of a fun search but ended, like everything to do with Richard, going in a totally different direction.

I did manage to find an Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, tucked away in an inheritance dispute in an early sixteenth century document. She was probably the daughter of Thomas, son of Robert Wayte and would have been about the right age had Arthur been born in the 1470s or 1480s. She had married a cousin of MB. So, like JAH, I still think that Elizabeth Skilling, as wife, not daughter of another Thomas Wayte is a good contender. Why? Well she fits very nicely with the profile of Edwards other 'seductions' - she's older than him (about 7 years), she's married, she's rich, she's feisty (see the later document) - and she's a Lancastrian, the ultimate challenge.

That she was not to be messed with is visible in the document below:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9736631

the final sentence is intriguing. Thomas Hampton from Southampton was a brother of Henry VI's esquire and father in law to another rebel William Frost. He was probably a lawyer and cousin to 'our' John Hampton, Stillington's son in law.

JAH says Elizabeth had no children by her first husband but she did - two. Joan, who was married to Sir John Speke and Agnes, firstly to John Wydeslely from another family of lawyers, and then, as his second wife, to Sir William Stonor. She features in the Stonor papers and died in 1481, probably as a result of childbirth. Hence she does not appear in her mother's will. Joan probably did the same.

Sir William Stonor, another 1483 rebel, was a friend of EW. And the rest of the trail leads us back to Yatton, the home of Sir John Newton and Isabel Cheddar, where the Wayte coat of arms is displayed on the church wall. In fact most of these people appear in deeds and documents associated with the Newtons and Chokkes. Our forger friend, Thomas Burton, half-brother of Ankarette Twynyho even witnesses one.

So did Stillington also know about Elizabeth Wayte? Arthur was not proclaimed publicly until 1502. Was this to seal his fate as a bastard, not a contender?

It's intriguing to wonder w hether there had been an earlier promise to Elizabeth Wayte, who was still alive in 1483. It was convenient that Eleanor was dead, but a living 'wife' with a child of age who was the potential heir was a whole different kettle of fish. Perhaps that's why it was chosen to disregard her?

What is tells me is that the Wayte story is no lightweight thing and needs a lot more work.

Nico, the idea of Arthur coming from a more recent generation is also mentioned by JAH, who thinks Arthur would have been too old for jousting in Henry VIII's court at about 50. But Anne Boleyn's 'lovers' who were also jousters, were pushing 50. Re Alice Wayte, yes she is younger (though still unmarried in 1487) - would Edward go for a young unmarried woman? She doesn't fit the profile. If you had to go for another it would have to be the Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, who married Thomas Rogers a cousin of MB (they had a mutual grandmother in Edith Stourton). She had 4 children by Rogers, though both sons seem to have been dead by the early 1500s. The marriage of Agnes Wynnard/Wydesley (ES's daughter) into the Stonor family does have the whiff of a Woodville by-off. Stonor next married Anne Neville, cousin of 'our' Anne. Did EW know about Wayte, but not about Eleanor?
It needs a lot more work. What I can say though is that, given that Stillington moved on the edges of Eleanor Talbot circles, he moved within Wayte circles since they were related to his son-in-law. He would certainly have known about Arthur - about whom nothing is known until 1502. H
(oh and just to add to even more confusion Thomas Rogers lived at Oare, one of the supposedly 'new' manors owned by Eleanor at the time of her death)
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
Thanks for the clarification about the 2 Elizabeths.  I do wonder why Hampton was imprisoned, as the document doesn't really explain what he did.  It sounds like some sort of slander with suggestions of a forced marriage between Elizabeth and John Winnard.  Perhaps 'Kinge's Wydowe' was the slur that caused Edward to order Hampton's imprisonment.  Since John Winnard is alive at the time of the petition, (c1462), she can't be a widow, and the marriage appears to be fairly recent given the nature of the gossip about it.  That would give a window of opportunity for Elizabeth to be the precontract if it happened early in his reign or shortly before.  There was a story about Edward seducing a woman in Warwick's household around that time.  Maybe that was her.  If any of this is true though, I doubt that there were any children, as Arthur, Lord Lisle appears to be from a younger generation, although there may have been an earlier Arthur who died young.  Margaret Lucy still seems the most likely candidate for being Margaret Lumley's mother.
'Elizabeth Lucy' definitely seems to be a composite of more than one woman.  This article mentions Elizabeth Skilling, but suggests that Lord Lisle may have been the son of her step daughter, Alice Wayte
RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Identifying Mistresses: Just Who Slept With Edward IV?
RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Identifying Mistresses: Just Who Slept With Edw...


Nico



On Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 09:55:02 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Hi Nico, sorry should have clarified more:
JAH agrees with the conclusions that 'Elizabeth Lucy', mother of Arthur,  did not exist and that she was really Elizabeth Wayte, identified originally by Buck as daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire. No-one had found an Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, but there was one as I discovered from a deed in TNA about her children's inheritance. Confusingly, there were two Thomas Waytes, probably cousins. The other Thomas Wayte had a wife called Elizabeth Skilling who was married firstly to John Wynnard, a Mercer and Alderman of London who died in 1468. The petition you mention is assumed to be dated 1462, so Elizabeth certainly wasn't a widow under the guardianship of the king. This Elizabeth is the one who fits exactly the profile of Edward's other conquests.
What is also interesting is that she moves in exactly the same home circles as Eleanor Talbot, Stillington, and a number of our 1483 rebels. I need to look again at these because whereas we assume that the Salisbury and Exeter rebels were probably discontented about trade etc, it could well be that the tentacles of the Woodvilles had reached there as well via, amongst others, the Stonors. The other interesting thing is that Elizabeth S spent most of her time in London and died there in 1487 - she left a lot of bequests to London churches. So she would have been right at the centre of things. And she would have been rich.
I'm still trying for find why Hampton was in the Fleet. He appears quite a bit in the Stonor Papers, where he seems to be acting as a lawyer in another inheritance dispute. He died in Southampton in October 1483 but his name appears on deeds with those of other 1483 rebels. My guess is that his age (about 68) probably excluded his own participation.
Hope this helps. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 14:13
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
The phrase 'ye kynges wydowe' is certainly intriguing. Maybe it was a nickname that she acquired because her reputation as a cast off mistress of the King, but it is unusual that it found its way into a legal document - suggesting that she was widely known as 'ye kynges wydowe.'  It sounds a bit sarcastic or mocking, but it could have been encouraged by her.  Did she feel bitter and blab about Edward promising to marry her?   Widow/wydowe is an interesting word in light of the precontract story and so is the date, 1462, being so early in Edward's reign. The Eleanor Talbot marriage was alleged to have been in 1461, so for Elizabeth Winnard to be called the 'kynges wydowe' in 1462 suggests that he was involved with her around the same time or before.

It would not surprise me at all  if Eleanor Talbot was not the only 'precontract,' and had Elizabeth Woodville not had such powerful family, who looked each other's interests, she may have ended up lost to history as another one.  I suspect that Edward was an impulsive, egotistical young man with a sense of entitlement and a attraction to older women, but was reckless rather than malicious, unaware that what he thought was a great seduction technique was actually canonically and legally binding. If he was doing this, who was first: Elizabeth or Eleanor (or even someone else)?
Consider this scenario: Edward secretly promises to marry Elizabeth then sleeps with her (maybe even before he becomes King).  Eventually she has an illegitimate child.  Then he does the same with Eleanor shortly after he becomes King.  Both women find out about each other and realize that he has no intention of making either of them his Queen.  If Elizabeth was first in time, Eleanor's 'marriage' would have been invalid.  This may explain why neither Eleanor nor her family ever challenged Edward, especially after she was paid off with the lands suggested by JAH.  As for Elizabeth, in her anger, she may have complained bitterly within her social circle, and people - whether they believed the story or not started calling her the 'kynges wydowe.'  Eventually, she may have been paid off and her child (Arthur? Elizabeth?) well provided for, so the notoriety died down, but was perhaps remembered and talked about occasionally in those circles, eventually reaching Stillington.  Eleanor was mentioned regarding the precontract, so maybe her family did confirm the story privately.
The Private Life of Edward IV is next on my list, so I haven't read JAH's list of candidates.  I'm a bit confused about which Elizabeth is which:- Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte. 
- Elizabeth Skilling wife of Thomas Wayte.Which one is the Elizabeth Wynard in the document?  Is there any more detail as to why Hampton was in the Fleet Prison on the King's orders?  Is there any record of when she married Wynard?

Nico

Nico I agree with your reasoning. Re Fitzalan, as I said in my post to Doug, Arthur wasn't heard of until 1502 so there are no details anywhere so far about his birth, or christening. And crucially, Edward never acknowledged any of his bastard children - unlike Richard and indeed the custom of he day. I do think the date of 1462 on the TNA document is significant and they seem to have been able to pinpoint it. Why would she be referred to as the king's widow unless she was his cast off? It would be interesting to see if it was added by a later hand, I might order a copy, though it does take forever.
I was thinking overnight that it's strange that TR doesn't quote a date for the Pre Contract - never noticed that before. I spend my days in IPMs, including proof of age, and the thing you really respect is how meticulous they are - even to the point of being amusing. Surely they would have collected the same evidence for such a momentous thing? You know 'on 2 Nov 1461 John Smith who was patching the thatching on his roof saw the King ride up to Sudeley. Later that day widow Brown who was hanging out the washing saw Edward stroll by with his arm round EB' And about another ten witness accounts; not just the sworn testimony of one witness, even if he could have been a priest. Could it be that they didn't want to announce the date?
And could that be because they were afraid someone else might come forward with a Pre Contract that predated the Eleanor one? Someone who was still alive. That would cause a real mess. I'm not necessarily talking about ES/Wayte because it does begin to look as though Edward had a habit of doing this. And Stillington, from his almost certain knowledge of two such women, would guess there could perhaps be more. There were certainly at least three more bastard children so I wonder who the others were?
Re Catesby and Clarence, I'm still working, but Roger Tocotes is on the radar. And Ankarette Twynyho's brother is another who witnessed a Wayte document. It's all so very incestuous. Why does nothing ever happen in Nottinghamshire :) And to think I started this as a bit of lighter 'fun' H  
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 14:55
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  If the suggestion that Arthur must have been born late than the 1460s is only based on him jousting with Henry VIII, then that is questionable.  50 isn't that old, and if he was reasonably fit, there shouldn't have been any reason why he couldn't joust, and Henry VIII may have preferred an older partner because you can learn from their experience.  However, he wasn't married until 1511, which was rather late, but not impossible.  I also agree that Edward would have been unlikely to seduce a woman as young as Alice Wayte, especially if she was unmarried.  It wasn't his style. So, if Arthur was born in the 1460s, then that would make Elizabeth Skilling a good candidate.  Doug mentioned sources that said  he was born in Calais, but that is probably those ancestry sites repeating misinformation, and I don't think it is likely.  Wikipedia also states that William Fitzalan, earl of Arundel was his godfather.  Is that true?

If Stillington moved in a social Venn Diagram that brought him close to the Wayte family and occasionally Eleanor, then he could easily have discovered something about both women.  As I mentioned before, I suspect the phrase 'Kynges Wydowe' was relevant to the legal case with Hampton, and he used it.  It would be unprofessional to refer to a party by a disparaging epithet if it wasn't.  From the details provided, it looks like Hampton may have said something about Elizabeth being pushed into marriage with Winnard, after being rejected by the King.   If Arthur was her child, he may have been known as Wayte from her later marriage to Thomas Wayte.  Since the legal case was in the public domain, chances are that there were rumours circling among people who knew them.  Where do Catesby and Clarence fit in with the Waytes, as EW did seem to be uncomfortable by the late 1470s?  (Ankaret Twyhno and the allegations about the execution of the Irish lords.)  Also, it seems strange that Arthur was never recognized by Edward?  He wasn't given a title until 1523 by Henry VIII.  Perhaps EW objected because she knew about the allegations regarding Elizabeth. 
Nico




On Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 08:36:28 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Nico, the idea of Arthur coming from a more recent generation is also mentioned by JAH, who thinks Arthur would have been too old for jousting in Henry VIII's court at about 50. But Anne Boleyn's 'lovers' who were also jousters, were pushing 50. Re Alice Wayte, yes she is younger (though still unmarried in 1487) - would Edward go for a young unmarried woman? She doesn't fit the profile. If you had to go for another it would have to be the Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, who married Thomas Rogers a cousin of MB (they had a mutual grandmother in Edith Stourton). She had 4 children by Rogers, though both sons seem to have been dead by the early 1500s. The marriage of Agnes Wynnard/Wydesley (ES's daughter) into the Stonor family does have the whiff of a Woodville by-off. Stonor next married Anne Neville, cousin of 'our' Anne. Did EW know about Wayte, but not about Eleanor?
It needs a lot more work. What I can say though is that, given that Stillington moved on the edges of Eleanor Talbot circles, he moved within Wayte circles since they were related to his son-in-law. He would certainly have known about Arthur - about whom nothing is known until 1502. H
(oh and just to add to even more confusion Thomas Rogers lived at Oare, one of the supposedly 'new' manors owned by Eleanor at the time of her death)
From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
Thanks for the clarification about the 2 Elizabeths.  I do wonder why Hampton was imprisoned, as the document doesn't really explain what he did.  It sounds like some sort of slander with suggestions of a forced marriage between Elizabeth and John Winnard.  Perhaps 'Kinge's Wydowe' was the slur that caused Edward to order Hampton's imprisonment.  Since John Winnard is alive at the time of the petition, (c1462), she can't be a widow, and the marriage appears to be fairly recent given the nature of the gossip about it.  That would give a window of opportunity for Elizabeth to be the precontract if it happened early in his reign or shortly before.  There was a story about Edward seducing a woman in Warwick's household around that time.  Maybe that was her.  If any of this is true though, I doubt that there were any children, as Arthur, Lord Lisle appears to be from a younger generation, although there may have been an earlier Arthur who died young.  Margaret Lucy still seems the most likely candidate for being Margaret Lumley's mother.
'Elizabeth Lucy' definitely seems to be a composite of more than one woman.  This article mentions Elizabeth Skilling, but suggests that Lord Lisle may have been the son of her step daughter, Alice Wayte
RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Identifying Mistresses: Just Who Slept With Edward IV?
RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Identifying Mistresses: Just Who Slept With Edw...


Nico



On Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 09:55:02 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Hi Nico, sorry should have clarified more:
JAH agrees with the conclusions that 'Elizabeth Lucy', mother of Arthur,  did not exist and that she was really Elizabeth Wayte, identified originally by Buck as daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire. No-one had found an Elizabeth Wayte, daughter of Thomas Wayte, but there was one as I discovered from a deed in TNA about her children's inheritance. Confusingly, there were two Thomas Waytes, probably cousins. The other Thomas Wayte had a wife called Elizabeth Skilling who was married firstly to John Wynnard, a Mercer and Alderman of London who died in 1468. The petition you mention is assumed to be dated 1462, so Elizabeth certainly wasn't a widow under the guardianship of the king. This Elizabeth is the one who fits exactly the profile of Edward's other conquests.
What is also interesting is that she moves in exactly the same home circles as Eleanor Talbot, Stillington, and a number of our 1483 rebels. I need to look again at these because whereas we assume that the Salisbury and Exeter rebels were probably discontented about trade etc, it could well be that the tentacles of the Woodvilles had reached there as well via, amongst others, the Stonors. The other interesting thing is that Elizabeth S spent most of her time in London and died there in 1487 - she left a lot of bequests to London churches. So she would have been right at the centre of things. And she would have been rich.
I'm still trying for find why Hampton was in the Fleet. He appears quite a bit in the Stonor Papers, where he seems to be acting as a lawyer in another inheritance dispute. He died in Southampton in October 1483 but his name appears on deeds with those of other 1483 rebels. My guess is that his age (about 68) probably excluded his own participation.
Hope this helps. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 14:13
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
The phrase 'ye kynges wydowe' is certainly intriguing. Maybe it was a nickname that she acquired because her reputation as a cast off mistress of the King, but it is unusual that it found its way into a legal document - suggesting that she was widely known as 'ye kynges wydowe.'  It sounds a bit sarcastic or mocking, but it could have been encouraged by her.  Did she feel bitter and blab about Edward promising to marry her?   Widow/wydowe is an interesting word in light of the precontract story and so is the date, 1462, being so early in Edward's reign. The Eleanor Talbot marriage was alleged to have been in 1461, so for Elizabeth Winnard to be called the 'kynges wydowe' in 1462 suggests that he was involved with her around the same time or before.

It would not surprise me at all  if Eleanor Talbot was not the only 'precontract,' and had Elizabeth Woodville not had such powerful family, who looked each other's interests, she may have ended up lost to history as another one.  I suspect that Edward was an impulsive, egotistical young man with a sense of entitlement and a attraction to older women, but was reckless rather than malicious, unaware that what he thought was a great seduction technique was actually canonically and legally binding. If he was doing this, who was first: Elizabeth or Eleanor (or even someone else)?
Consider this scenario: Edward secretly promises to marry Elizabeth then sleeps with her (maybe even before he becomes King).  Eventually she has an illegitimate child.  Then he does the same with Eleanor shortly after he becomes King.  Both women find out about each other and realize that he has no intention of making either of them his Queen.  If Elizabeth was first in time, Eleanor's 'marriage' would have been invalid.  This may explain why neither Eleanor nor her family ever challenged Edward, especially after she was paid off with the lands suggested by JAH.  As for Elizabeth, in her anger, she may have complained bitterly within her social circle, and people - whether they believed the story or not started calling her the 'kynges wydowe.'  Eventually, she may have been paid off and her child (Arthur? Elizabeth?) well provided for, so the notoriety died down, but was perhaps remembered and talked about occasionally in those circles, eventually reaching Stillington.  Eleanor was mentioned regarding the precontract, so maybe her family did confirm the story privately.
The Private Life of Edward IV is next on my list, so I haven't read JAH's list of candidates.  I'm a bit confused about which Elizabeth is which:- Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte. 
- Elizabeth Skilling wife of Thomas Wayte.Which one is the Elizabeth Wynard in the document?  Is there any more detail as to why Hampton was in the Fleet Prison on the King's orders?  Is there any record of when she married Wynard?

Nico

Taking your last sentence first, certainly JAH thinks that HT deliberately accepted Arthur so that he could publicly affirm that he was a bastard and quash any idea in anyone of supporting him as a pretender - a clever move.The trouble with the king's widow document is that it dates from 1462, when ES was married to Wynnard, and had probably been so for about 10 years. He died in 1468 and we don't quite know when she married Wayte but he died in 1482. Now had it been dated 1472 then that would have made more sense; or simply Edward preferred married women. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 15:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

        Hilary, Thank you very much for all the information! I had mentioned Calais solely on the off-chance that there might be something in it which could help better pin down the date of Arthur's birth. Oh well.. If, and I emphasize that if, Elizabeth Wayte was mostly in London between 1475 and 1482 (when Thomas Wayte died), I'd tend to think Arthur may have been born after Thomas' death. That reference to her being the King's widow, even if meant unkindly, seems to me to be more likely for something that also took place after she herself was widowed the second time. If Arthur was born in 1482/3, then he'd have been 29 when he married for the first time and 60 when he died of that heart attack. OTOH, if he was born in 1462, Arthur would have 49 when he married for the first time and 80 when he died. It may just be me, but I rather think 29 and 60 more likely than 49 and 80. You wrote in your first(?) post on this subject that Elizabeth Skilling was 7 years older than Edward, which would have made her 47/48 to his 40/41. Perhaps Arthur was, um, unexpected? Even if he was the son of Edward IV, he was still a bastard and quite possibly somewhat embarrassing. Might his being unknown as Edward's son, albeit illegitimate, be due to the possible danger that the mere knowledge of his existence could bring? Especially after the Simnel and Warbeck episodes? Doug   Hilary wrote: Doug, I think a lot of this is genealogy misinformation. Arthur was later Deputy of Calais. The fact is because Edward never acknowledged him and he didn't 'emerge' until 1502 we don't know where or when he was born. But we do know he was related to the Waytes of Hampshire because he later corresponded with them.
According to JAH's very useful itinery Edward was in Hampshire in the autumn of 1461, but actually he doesn't have to have been in Hampshire because Elizabeth S, when married to both husbands, spent quite a bit of time in London - both husbands were Mercers, John Wynnard was an Alderman. ES's father was Receiver General for the Staffords in Hants and Wilts and his father had been a Judge. John Wynnard's father was Recorder of Exeter (think 1483 rebellions). JAH bases Arthur's age and later date of birth on his appearance at a joust when, had he been born in 1462, he would have been about 50. Now that isn't odd - I've just been dealing with the IPM of a guy who was killed in a joust at 70!
ES's daughters made very good marriages - Agnes to John Wydeslade, who was son of an Assize Justice in Exeter, and then to Sir William Stonor, High Sheriff of Berks and friend of EW. Joan married Sir John Speke, from the family of High Sheriffs in Somerset & Dorset.
By 1475 ES would have been married to her second husband, Thomas Wayte, who died in April 1482. We have his IPM and there is no daughter Elizabeth. She herself died in London in Oct 1487, and is the one who mentions Thomas's bastard daughter Alice who is seen by some as a candidate for Arthur's mother, but not by me.
Two other points of interest. Both of ES's husbands were Drapers/Clothmen, so they could have had connections with Calais. Secondly, all this again is dangerously near to my old friend Stillington - and Eleanor Butler. There is a memorial to the Waytes in Yatton Church - the burial place of Sir John Newton and Isabel Cheddar.
Hope this helps.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Just a thought but if Arthur was born before Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor Talbot then wouldn't he be the legitimate heir if Edward had secretly married his mother in the same way. If so that might be why the Tydder was so desperate to recognise him as an illegitimate son.

Doug, sorry not good at cutting so:
Point one, as I said in my post to Nico we don't actually know when ES married Wynnard. The assumption comes from a proposed date of birth of Agnes as 1452. But as we know, these presumptions can be horribly wrong. See my reply there. Secondly, as you say, if Edward did 'propose' when she was married he couldn't marry her until the marriage was annulled (if it could be) or it would be bigamous. We think she married Wayte in about 1469, but as you say it could be as late as 1475. Since they had no children we just can't guess. So yes I agree. Your point about grass widow is interesting. The latter date would fit with her residence in London and Edward's reputed dalliances with merchants' wives.
Point Two, the Pre Contract date. I didn't so much expect a precise day in TR or the Parliament Records itself but I would have expected a year which finally puts on the table that it is before May 1464. And you would have thought it would have taken more than a day or two to search for and gather prospective witnesses. Yet there are no rumours of people being called - the Stonors are very quiet assuming this is before the death of Hastings when their correspondence ceases.
Point Three, you're right about the small population of course, in fact at this point it was probably more like 1.5 million. There were only 60,000 people in London in 1500, compared with 500,000 in 1600 and the next town was Norwich with 12,000. And yes widely we are all related because of that. But the concentration of a lot of our key players round a few villages in Somerset - Yatton, East Harptree, Wraxall - which border Clarence territory at Farleigh, and indeed Gamorgan, is odd but not totally unexpected given the problems Edward seems to have had with that part of the world during his first reign And that included with religious houses there.
BTW I forgot to say that Thomas Wayte and Thomas Hampton are buried in the same chapel at Stoke Charity Hants. JH mentions this but does not realise the affinity between them. H 
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2017, 17:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

        Hilary wrote: Nico I agree with your reasoning. Re Fitzalan, as I said in my post to Doug, Arthur wasn't heard of until 1502 so there are no details anywhere so far about his birth, or christening. And crucially, Edward never acknowledged any of his bastard children - unlike Richard and indeed the custom of he day. I do think the date of 1462 on the TNA document is significant and they seem to have been able to pinpoint it. Why would she be referred to as the king's widow unless she was his cast off? It would be interesting to see if it was added by a later hand, I might order a copy, though it does take forever.   Doug here: Something has been bothering me and I finally realized what it was. Namely that, in an earlier post on this subject you wrote that Elizabeth Skillings was married to John Wynnard in 1462 and had been for about a decade. You also wrote that Wynnard died in 1468. Now, if Arthur was born in 1462, he'd legally have been Wynnard's son, wouldn't he? Which might be the reason for never acknowledging this particular offspring, Edward may not have known he'd even had a son by ES. OTOH, if Edward operated in his usual manner in regards to ES, then wouldn't a date between 1468 and 1475 (I think) be the most likely as that would have been when ES was a widow? It could also explain the King's widow reference which, as you say, might have been added by a later hand. Just for fun I looked up the term grass widow and came across this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grass%20widow   for which the first two definitions are a discarded mistress and a woman who has had an illegitimate child. The trouble is, as you say, in 1462 ES doesn't fit the profile we know for Edward's mistresses; mainly, ES was married. Don't know if any of this helps...   Hilary continued: I was thinking overnight that it's strange that TR doesn't quote a date for the Pre Contract - never noticed that before. I spend my days in IPMs, including proof of age, and the thing you really respect is how meticulous they are - even to the point of being amusing. Surely they would have collected the same evidence for such a momentous thing? You know 'on 2 Nov 1461 John Smith who was patching the thatching on his roof saw the King ride up to Sudeley. Later that day widow Brown who was hanging out the washing saw Edward stroll by with his arm round EB' And about another ten witness accounts; not just the sworn testimony of one witness, even if he could have been a priest. Could it be that they didn't want to announce the date?   Doug here: Wouldn't such information, if available, have been included as part of those proofs presented to the Council and, most likely, to Parliament when Titulus Regius was passed? Then there's the sheer embarrassment of it all. Here's the entire kingdom, scammed by the King into accepting his bastards as legitimate! Why say more than what's absolutely necessary? Nor do we know that whatever proofs were presented to the Council weren't also presented to, first the Three States, and then Parliament. Which would mean to me that the evidence had been presented to those who indeed needed to know the facts - just as an IPM would have presented the facts of a person's death, and the property they held, to a judge. Or am I missing something?   Hilary continued:
And co uld that be because they were afraid someone else mig ht come forward with a Pre Contract that predated the Eleanor one? Someone who was still alive. That would cause a real mess. I'm not necessarily talking about ES/Wayte because it does begin to look as though Edward had a habit of doing this. And Stillington, from his almost certain knowledge of two such women, would guess there could perhaps be more. There were certainly at least three more bastard children so I wonder who the others were?   Doug here: Of course, if Edward had dallied with ES in 1462, rather than when she was between husbands, then the only mess I can think of would have been the one ES would have placed herself if she'd tried to claim a son born to her while she was married to Wynnard was actually Edward's. Of course, if one starts with when Edward first likely became interested in the opposite sex, say somewhere around 1458, then a whole new can of worms gets opened! Just what was the age at which a male could, on his own, legally contract a marriage? 18?   Hilary concluded: Re Catesby and Clarence, I'm still working, but Roger Tocotes is on the radar. And Ankarette Twynyho's brother is another who witnessed a Wayte document. It's all so very incestuous. Why does nothing ever happen in Nottinghamshire :) And to think I started this as a bit of lighter 'fun'   Doug here: If this link: https://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Population%20of%20England%201965.pdf is valid, then England probably only had a population of around 2,500,000 during the middle 1400s. Presuming an upper class of approximately 10% and one gets 250,000. A further presumption that half are children and we're now down to 125,000. Scatter that population all over the countryside and  voila  everybody knows  and may be related to  everyone else! Well, it sounds good - even if it doesn't make it any more fun... Doug Who just realized that Eleanor Butler was, as far as we know, the wild card in Edward's relations with women  she was a year younger than he.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I've now found it in Stonor Nico. I missed it at the back. So Wynnard was dead by 1462 and Elizabeth's second marriage was in the king's hands? That's very interesting. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 September 2017, 14:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi,
I can't find details of when Elizabeth married John Winnard, but it seems earlier than I had thought when you try to calculate the ages of her daughters.  In Kingsford's Stonor Letters, there is a note about Agnes.  John Winnard wrote his will on May 1st 1459 and requested that Richard Wydeslade be Agnes' guardian.  Winnard died in 1468 She later married Richard Wydeslade's son, but was a widow with no children by 1479.  Then she married Stonor and died in 1481.  Since the will isn't available, I don't know whether same provision was made for Joan.  Agnes is the younger daughter and if she was married by 1479, she could have been born at the latest by about 1465.  However, Joan, who married Sir John Speke seems to be older as her first child was estimated to have been born around 1468.  If that date is correct, Joan would have been born in the early 1550s.
That would change the picture somewhat.  If Elizabeth Skilling was born about 1435, she probably married Jon Winnard in the early 1550s, and Joan was born soon afterwards.  Agnes was born later, but it isn't clear how much.  While still married to Winnard, she may have had an affair with Edward soon after he became King - around the same time as the Eleanor Talbot precontract (JAH estimates June 1461).   If that is correct, she was still married to Winnard, so he couldn't have tried the precontract trick on her and Arthur could not possibly be legitimate?  Doug raised an interesting point about the presumption of paternity, which would have made him legally Winnard's son, and he would have been known as Arthur Winnard.  However, if John Winnard could prove with certainty that he could not have been Arthur's father, he may have rejected him, so he later called himself Wayte. From the text of the petition, Hampton clearly said something about the nature of Elizabeth's marriage, and since the term 'Kynges Wydowe' is mentioned, perhaps he meant something like 'grass widow.'  What was so serious about it that Edward imprisoned Hampton?  Could it have been something that also mentioned Eleanor Talbot?  I wonder if there is more in the original document.  Unfortunately, if there is, it is in old French.

Another point of interest was that one of John Speke's guardians was a John Hampton of Kinver in Staffordshire (d1472).  Could he related to Thomas Hampton of the Kynges Wydowe petition?  I was also looking for Elizabeth's Skillings parents.   There was a reference in British History online about a manor that she inherited in Sutton Scotney in 1464.  It said that it passed to her from John Skilling and Elizabeth Norton (it sounds like her father and her aunt), but I can't be sure.  She was an adult in 1464, but the manor could have passed to her indirectly.  Hampton state is the petition that he recommended that she marry Winnard, but didn't force her.  Could he have been her guardian, and was she alleging that her marriage to Winnard was forced and therefore illegal, and was now seeking an annulment, so she could marry Edward (who was making false promises.)

Sorry to be longwinded and hope this makes sense.
Nico

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9736631
Parishes: Wonston | British History Online
John Speke (1442 1518) - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NcLTndriDR4C&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=agnes+wynard+stonor&source=bl&ots=mKkqUPbmhz&sig=-kiL73D8oQfueaiUND-L5G8rcwY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS4aa5mJ3WAhUjAcAKHcLhDbYQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=agnes%20wynard%20stonor&f=false


















On Monday, 11 September 2017, 10:38:22 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Doug, sorry not good at cutting so:
Point one, as I said in my post to Nico we don't actually know when ES married Wynnard. The assumption comes from a proposed date of birth of Agnes as 1452. But as we know, these presumptions can be horribly wrong. See my reply there. Secondly, as you say, if Edward did 'propose' when she was married he couldn't marry her until the marriage was annulled (if it could be) or it would be bigamous. We think she married Wayte in about 1469, but as you say it could be as late as 1475. Since they had no children we just can't guess. So yes I agree. Your point about grass widow is interesting. The latter date would fit with her residence in London and Edward's reputed dalliances with merchants' wives.
Point Two, the Pre Contract date. I didn't so much expect a precise day in TR or the Parliament Records itself but I would have expected a year which finally puts on the table that it is before May 1464. And you would have thought it would have taken more than a day or two to search for and gather prospective witnesses. Yet there are no rumours of people being called - the Stonors are very quiet assuming this is before the death of Hastings when their correspondence ceases.
Point Three, you're right about the small population of course, in fact at this point it was probably more like 1.5 million. There were only 60,000 people in London in 1500, compared with 500,000 in 1600 and the next town was Norwich with 12,000. And yes widely we are all related because of that. But the concentration of a lot of our key players round a few villages in Somerset - Yatton, East Harptree, Wraxall - which border Clarence territory at Farleigh, and indeed Gamorgan, is odd but not totally unexpected given the problems Edward seems to have had with that part of the world during his first reign And that included with religious houses there.
BTW I forgot to say that Thomas Wayte and Thomas Hampton are buried in the same chapel at Stoke Charity Hants. JH mentions this but does not realise the affinity between them. H 
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2017, 17:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

        Hilary wrote: Nico I agree with your reasoning. Re Fitzalan, as I said in my post to Doug, Arthur wasn't heard of until 1502 so there are no details anywhere so far about his birth, or christening. And crucially, Edward never acknowledged any of his bastard children - unlike Richard and indeed the custom of he day. I do think the date of 1462 on the TNA document is significant and they seem to have been able to pinpoint it. Why would she be referred to as the king's widow unless she was his cast off? It would be interesting to see if it was added by a later hand, I might order a copy, though it does take forever.   Doug here: Something has been bothering me and I finally realized what it was. Namely that, in an earlier post on this subject you wrote that Elizabeth Skillings was married to John Wynnard in 1462 and had been for about a decade. You also wrote that Wynnard died in 1468. Now, if Arthur was born in 1462, he'd legally have been Wynnard's son, wouldn't he? Which might be the reason for never acknowledging this particular offspring, Edward may not have known he'd even had a son by ES. OTOH, if Edward operated in his usual manner in regards to ES, then wouldn't a date between 1468 and 1475 (I think) be the most likely as that would have been when ES was a widow? It could also explain the King's widow reference which, as you say, might have been added by a later hand. Just for fun I looked up the term grass widow and came across this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grass%20widow   for which the first two definitions are a discarded mistress and a woman who has had an illegitimate child. The trouble is, as you say, in 1462 ES doesn't fit the profile we know for Edward's mistresses; mainly, ES was married. Don't know if any of this helps...   Hilary continued: I was thinking overnight that it's strange that TR doesn't quote a date for the Pre Contract - never noticed that before. I spend my days in IPMs, including proof of age, and the thing you really respect is how meticulous they are - even to the point of being amusing. Surely they would have collected the same evidence for such a momentous thing? You know 'on 2 Nov 1461 John Smith who was patching the thatching on his roof saw the King ride up to Sudeley. Later that day widow Brown who was hanging out the washing saw Edward stroll by with his arm round EB' And about another ten witness accounts; not just the sworn testimony of one witness, even if he could have been a priest. Could it be that they didn't want to announce the date?   Doug here: Wouldn't such information, if available, have been included as part of those proofs presented to the Council and, most likely, to Parliament when Titulus Regius was passed? Then there's the sheer embarrassment of it all. Here's the entire kingdom, scammed by the King into accepting his bastards as legitimate! Why say more than what's absolutely necessary? Nor do we know that whatever proofs were presented to the Council weren't also presented to, first the Three States, and then Parliament. Which would mean to me that the evidence had been presented to those who indeed needed to know the facts - just as an IPM would have presented the facts of a person's death, and the property they held, to a judge. Or am I missing something?   Hilary continued:
And co uld that be because they were afraid someone else mig ht come forward with a Pre Contract that predated the Eleanor one? Someone who was still alive. That would cause a real mess. I'm not necessarily talking about ES/Wayte because it does begin to look as though Edward had a habit of doing this. And Stillington, from his almost certain knowledge of two such women, would guess there could perhaps be more. There were certainly at least three more bastard children so I wonder who the others were?   Doug here: Of course, if Edward had dallied with ES in 1462, rather than when she was between husbands, then the only mess I can think of would have been the one ES would have placed herself if she'd tried to claim a son born to her while she was married to Wynnard was actually Edward's. Of course, if one starts with when Edward first likely became interested in the opposite sex, say somewhere around 1458, then a whole new can of worms gets opened! Just what was the age at which a male could, on his own, legally contract a marriage? 18?   Hilary concluded: Re Catesby and Clarence, I'm still working, but Roger Tocotes is on the radar. And Ankarette Twynyho's brother is another who witnessed a Wayte document. It's all so very incestuous. Why does nothing ever happen in Nottinghamshire :) And to think I started this as a bit of lighter 'fun'   Doug here: If this link: https://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Population%20of%20England%201965.pdf is valid, then England probably only had a population of around 2,500,000 during the middle 1400s. Presuming an upper class of approximately 10% and one gets 250,000. A further presumption that half are children and we're now down to 125,000. Scatter that population all over the countryside and  voila  everybody knows  and may be related to  everyone else! Well, it sounds good - even if it doesn't make it any more fun... Doug Who just realized that Eleanor Butler was, as far as we know, the wild card in Edward's relations with women  she was a year younger than he.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Curiouser and curiouser Nico!  Keep digging.

Nico I've downloaded the document and read it. It's actually in English but the writing is pretty hard. TNA's document description is virtually an exact 'translation' so it doesn't tell us more, or even mention Wayte. It's even more confusing because, as a plea, Hampton writes about himself in the third person. There's a note on the side which mentions Camden Vol XIII so I've sent for a copy of that (got it for 78p). Will have to wait till it comes though. One would have thought there would have been some more information somewhere.
Of course the Stonors knew of this, so it's very likely that EW would too. H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017, 12:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  And of course if Arthur had been conceived via a Pre Contract in 1460/61 which preceded that of EB then he would be the rightful heir - explosive that. And we know Edward had an interest in ES because she was under his guardianship. Better by far to chose EB for the 'revelation'. H



From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017, 10:58
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi, I'll have a go. 
I've just discovered they sent me the wrong will! No wonder he had a funny brother Will come back to you when I've digested the right one. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2017, 13:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions
r 
 
Hi,
I downloaded the 1462 case between Elizabeth Winnard and John Hampton, but unfortunately the writing isn't very legible.  The details about Agnes Wyldesley are on page xxxi of the introduction to Kingsford's Stonor Letters.  He says it is dated May 1st 1459, but Winnard died in 1468.  The probate date for the will John Wynnard in the NA is 1468 (and that is the only one for that time, and I tried all the possible spellings.)  If there is a reference to Agnes in the will you downloaded it must be the same John Winnard who was married to Elizabeth Skilling, but is there any mention of when he died?   If it was probated in 1468, I would have thought he died closer to that date, but if there were complications with the estate it could have taken longer.  The fine for Elizabeth Skilling and Wayte's marriage was 1467, so Winnard must have been dead by then.  However, I can't find any listing of Winnard as an alderman for the relevant time.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/london-aldermen/hen3-1912/pp1-20
In the 1462 case, Elizabeth is still referred to as Winnard, so he must be the 'husband of a notable livelihood' referred to in the case, and the one that Hampton was alleged to have forced her to marry.  It is interesting that the Wynnard of the will doesn't refer to any immediate family or a current wife.  Does the reference to Agnes Stonor come later in the will, which is rather long?  Wynnard and Elizabeth could have separated.  In the will that Kingsford refers to, in 1459, he made arrangements for Agnes' guardianship with the Wydeslade family, and by 1467, she had married her guardian's son.  Are there any reference for Joan's guardianship?  If there isn't, she may have been old enough not to need a guardian.  I now think that the girls are the children of his first wife, and Elizabeth Skilling married Winnard after the 1459 will was written; there was something about the marriage that she was unhappy about involving Hampton; she was in a relationship with Edward by the early 1460s, who imprisoned Hampton, and Arthur may have been born sometime before 1467, and assumed the name Wayte.
I will see if I can print out and enlarge the will and see what I can do with the French.  I think some answers may be in section 4, 'matter concerning the marriage.'  It is a free download if anyone else wants to give it a try.

Nico





On Tuesday, 12 September 2017, 16:56:40 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

  Curiouser and curiouser Nico!  Keep digging.
Mary

Nico, regardless of Arthur (though it could be important and your last point is an interesting one) if one steps back have we stumbled on the methodology of the 'serial wencher'? After all, Elizabeth must have complained directly to Edward or the Council (Hampton mentions them) and that could well be how he came to know her. And JAH claims that he probably met EB in a similar way. It must have been quite flattering for an inexperienced king to be petitioned by these attractive young widows. And of course EW is also portrayed as presenting her case to Edward (under a tree with her two sons, though a fictional story as we know). Off to do more digging.  H 

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 September 2017, 16:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Thanks for having a look into that, Hilary.  I had a look at the document and while relieved it was in English, it is still difficult to read.  I'm not great at paleography, but since I know the essence of this document, it will be good practice.  I look forward to finding out if there is anything significant in the side note.
If Wynard died in 1459, and Elizabeth remarried by 1462, then the timeline comes together better. The online edition of Kingsford says that Wynard died in 1468, but that must be the other will.  Arthur's birth would have occurred around 1461.  ES may well have been the first precontract, which may explain why EB disappeared from Edward's life so quickly and without protest.  Imprisoning Hampton and hanging on for 5 years to give Wayte a pardon suggests a certain amount of bitterness on Edward's part.  I wonder what his intentions were towards ES, especially if she hadn't married Wayte.  She wouldn't have been a suitable candidate to be his Queen, but neither was EW

You are right about the longevity (or lack of it) of the Plantagenet men.  Arthur would have been over 80 when he died, so he must have inherited some stronger genes from his mother - or perhaps he really was Wayte's son after all.

Nico

On Friday, 15 September 2017, 09:20:35 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Nico I've downloaded the document and read it. It's actually in English but the writing is pretty hard. TNA's document description is virtually an exact 'translation' so it doesn't tell us more, or even mention Wayte. It's even more confusing because, as a plea, Hampton writes about himself in the third person. There's a note on the side which mentions Camden Vol XIII so I've sent for a copy of that (got it for 78p). Will have to wait till it comes though. One would have thought there would have been some more information somewhere.
Of course the Stonors knew of this, so it's very likely that EW would too. H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017, 12:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  And of course if Arthur had been conceived via a Pre Contract in 1460/61 which preceded that of EB then he would be the rightful heir - explosive that. And we know Edward had an interest in ES because she was under his guardianship. Better by far to chose EB for the 'revelation'. H



From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2017, 10:58
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi, I'll have a go. 
I've just discovered they sent me the wrong will! No wonder he had a funny brother Will come back to you when I've digested the right one. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2017, 13:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions
r 
 
Hi,
I downloaded the 1462 case between Elizabeth Winnard and John Hampton, but unfortunately the writing isn't very legible.  The details about Agnes Wyldesley are on page xxxi of the introduction to Kingsford's Stonor Letters.  He says it is dated May 1st 1459, but Winnard died in 1468.  The probate date for the will John Wynnard in the NA is 1468 (and that is the only one for that time, and I tried all the possible spellings.)  If there is a reference to Agnes in the will you downloaded it must be the same John Winnard who was married to Elizabeth Skilling, but is there any mention of when he died?   If it was probated in 1468, I would have thought he died closer to that date, but if there were complications with the estate it could have taken longer.  The fine for Elizabeth Skilling and Wayte's marriage was 1467, so Winnard must have been dead by then.  However, I can't find any listing of Winnard as an alderman for the relevant time.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/london-aldermen/hen3-1912/pp1-20
In the 1462 case, Elizabeth is still referred to as Winnard, so he must be the 'husband of a notable livelihood' referred to in the case, and the one that Hampton was alleged to have forced her to marry.  It is interesting that the Wynnard of the will doesn't refer to any immediate family or a current wife.  Does the reference to Agnes Stonor come later in the will, which is rather long?  Wynnard and Elizabeth could have separated.  In the will that Kingsford refers to, in 1459, he made arrangements for Agnes' guardianship with the Wydeslade family, and by 1467, she had married her guardian's son.  Are there any reference for Joan's guardianship?  If there isn't, she may have been old enough not to need a guardian.  I now think that the girls are the children of his first wife, and Elizabeth Skilling married Winnard after the 1459 will was written; there was something about the marriage that she was unhappy about involving Hampton; she was in a relationship with Edward by the early 1460s, who imprisoned Hampton, and Arthur may have been born sometime before 1467, and assumed the name Wayte.
I will see if I can print out and enlarge the will and see what I can do with the French.  I think some answers may be in section 4, 'matter concerning the marriage.'  It is a free download if anyone else wants to give it a try.

Nico





On Tuesday, 12 September 2017, 16:56:40 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

  Curiouser and curiouser Nico!  Keep digging.
Mary

On Saturday, September 16, 2017, 9:47 pm, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

So, according to the evidence, Elizabeth Skelling was almost certainly married all through the 1460s?

The said Thomas Hampton, notwithstanding her said excuse so heard, at all times intending the King's pleasure, lowly submitteth him as well as the said Elizabeth to make a fine jointly with the said Elizabeth, if it require him so to do, at all times meekly beseeching your Lordship their said fine to be the less for diverse considerations that here followeth in writing.

· The first cause: where it is so that her said husband were a man of notable livelode, Wynslade[1] saith that her said husband had never no lands in his own possession, whereof she oweth to be endowable, not passing the value of £10.

· Also, all-were- it-so [albeit] that Thomas Hampton your said suppliant took upon him to move her to take her husband that now is, in so much as it was her own good will at all times, never coerced thereto by the said Thomas Hampton but only moving her as lawful was unto, etc.

· Also, all-were-it- so that she was married ere she came afore your Lordship and the lords of the Council, the said Thomas Hampton never understood where she ne her said husband were from the time that he was committed unto prison (ne his wife neither, and thilk [ thus] rode she then 120 mile to have met with them, and in no wise could find them, etc).

· Moreover, whereas ye, my Lord, by sinister information should be informed that they were not handfast afore or your servant seized her, as by his word as for the King's Widow, the contrary is truth, etc.

· As for the bond of the obligation,it was never the said Thomas Hampton's intent that ever she should have sealed it utterly, willing her not to seal, with diverse exhortations as farforth as he might honestly with his word, ne never knowing ne assenting to the engrossing of the same.

In the which matter and in all these matters the said Thomas shall do as your lordship shall adjudge or advise.

Also, moreover, in the way of Christ's charity, the more pity to have because of his great age, considering his long imprisonment to his great cost and loss, and also at diverse times with great sickness to him, great heaviness and discomfort, etc."

[1] Probably John Wynslade or Wydeslade, husband of John Wynarde's daughter Agnes.

Hi all,

The said Thomas Hampton, notwithstanding her said excuse so heard, at all times intending the King's pleasure, lowly submitteth him as well as the said Elizabeth to make a fine jointly with the said Elizabeth, if it require him so to do, at all times meekly beseeching your Lordship their said fine to be the less for diverse considerations that here followeth in writing.

·         The first cause: where it is so that her said husband were a man of notable livelode, Wynslade[1] saith that her said husband had never no lands in his own possession, whereof she oweth to be endowable, not passing the value of £10.

·         Also, all-were- it-so [albeit] that Thomas Hampton your said suppliant took upon him to move her to take her husband that now is, in so much as it was her own good will at all times, never coerced thereto by the said Thomas Hampton but only moving her as lawful was unto, etc.

·         Also, all-were-it- so that she was married ere she came afore your Lordship and the lords of the Council, the said Thomas Hampton never understood where she ne her said husband were from the time that he was committed unto prison (ne his wife neither, and thilk [ thus] rode she then 120 mile to have met with them, and in no wise could find them, etc).

·         Moreover, whereas ye, my Lord, by sinister information should be informed that they were not handfast afore or your servant seized her, as by his word as for the King's Widow, the contrary is truth, etc.

·         As for the bond of the obligation,it was never the said Thomas Hampton's intent that ever she should have sealed it utterly, willing her not to seal, with diverse exhortations as farforth as he might honestly with his word, ne never knowing ne assenting to the engrossing of the same.

In the which matter and in all these matters the said Thomas shall do as your lordship shall adjudge or advise.

Also, moreover, in the way of Christ's charity, the more pity to have because of his great age, considering his long imprisonment to his great cost and loss, and also at diverse times with great sickness to him, great heaviness and discomfort, etc."

[1] Probably John Wynslade or Wydeslade, husband of John Wynarde's daughter Agnes.
 

Would have been fun though Nico! I have ES as being born in about 1435. Some genealogy sites have Agnes born in 1452, so that would be consistent. ES could of course have conceived Arthur whilst she was married. Her home seems to have been in London from her marriage to Wayte. Certainly at the date of the will 1459 Agnes isn't married or of age but she is married by 1468 when John Skilling passes Rollestone to her. Edward is supposed to have had dalliances with merchants' wives. We need John Skilling's IPM.
The strange thing about the JAH book is that he is saying that there is no proof that Edward had affairs - that it's all More etc. But by saying that isn't he contradicting TR, which effectively means that Richard was lying about his brother's lifestyle. A strange thing for a Ricardian to do. I wonder if he'd thought it through? H  PS I don't often praise Hicks but his Mapping Site is marvellous. 

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: ; mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017, 14:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Thanks Marie for sorting that out.  The timeline does change the landscape of the this.  If Elizabeth was almost consistently married until 1482, that would limit her chances to be Arthur's mother, as by this point she would be at least late 40s, probably older.  A problem with working this out is trying to approximate the ages of these people.  Hopefully, the Wynard IPM will be among those due to be added to the Mapping the Countryside site.  Elizabeth had no children with Wayte, and had a married daughter, which suggests that she was middle aged when she married him in the late 1460s. That would bring us back to Alice, Thomas Wayte's daughter again as a possible candidate for Arthur's mother, especially since Anstis narrowed down 'Elizabeth Wayte' through Arthur's connections to Thomas Wayte's nephews.  Maybe he confused the names of Thomas' daughter and his wife.  Alice does seem a bit young, given his known preference for older women, but as he got older, he may have had younger mistresses, as mid to late 20s may have been his ideal age range.  In that case, Arthur would have been considerably younger.  Whatever the facts, I think we can rule out any precontracts with Elizabeth Skilling.
Nico

On Sunday, 17 September 2017, 13:13:39 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  Hi all,
I have uploaded the transcript of the Hampton document to Files, but here it is with modernised spelling and punctuation:-
"Lowly beseecheth your good Lordship Thomas Hampton, of long time past by your commandment upon a wrongful and a heinous suggestion committed unto the Fleet for certain injuries surmised to be done unto Elizabeth Wynarde called the King's Widow (as reason, my Lord, with conscience, you required at the time, unto such season as the contrary might be proved by due examination of the said Elizabeth afore your good Lordship heard), whereupon the said Elizabeth, afore your Lordship and other of the lords of the King's Council duly examined of the said wrongs, the said Thomas plainly hath excused. The said Thomas Hampton, notwithstanding her said excuse so heard, at all times intending the King's pleasure, lowly submitteth him as well as the said Elizabeth to make a fine jointly with the said Elizabeth, if it require him so to do, at all times meekly beseeching your Lordship their said fine to be the less for diverse considerations that here followeth in writing. ·         The first cause: where it is so that her said husband were a man of notable livelode, Wynslade[1] saith that her said husband had never no lands in his own possession, whereof she oweth to be endowable, not passing the value of £10. ·         Also, all-were- it-so [albeit] that Thomas Hampton your said suppliant took upon him to move her to take her husband that now is, in so much as it was her own good will at all times, never coerced thereto by the said Thomas Hampton but only moving her as lawful was unto, etc. ·         Also, all-were-it- so that she was married ere she came afore your Lordship and the lords of the Council, the said Thomas Hampton never understood where she ne her said husband were from the time that he was committed unto prison (ne his wife neither, and thilk [ thus] rode she then 120 mile to have met with them, and in no wise could find them, etc). ·         Moreover, whereas ye, my Lord, by sinister information should be informed that they were not handfast afore or your servant seized her, as by his word as for the King's Widow, the contrary is truth, etc. ·         As for the bond of the obligation,it was never the said Thomas Hampton's intent that ever she should have sealed it utterly, willing her not to seal, with diverse exhortations as farforth as he might honestly with his word, ne never knowing ne assenting to the engrossing of the same. In the which matter and in all these matters the said Thomas shall do as your lordship shall adjudge or advise. Also, moreover, in the way of Christ's charity, the more pity to have because of his great age, considering his long imprisonment to his great cost and loss, and also at diverse times with great sickness to him, great heaviness and discomfort, etc."
[1] Probably John Wynslade or Wydeslade, husband of John Wynarde's daughter Agnes.
 

Yes to all this Nico. I know JAH is not well so don't like to criticise but it is a strange book. On the one hand he states categorically that Stillington witnessed the Pre Contract and EW murdered Clarence (both without a shred of solid proof and certainly less than we had for our quest) and on the other he claims that Edward has been maligned which undermines the statement of Richard in TR. He even says that Elizabeth Lambert (Shore) was not a mistress. And she is yet another one who fits 'the profile' i.e. a potentially wronged woman whose marriage has been anulled.
I shall keep looking at all this - I have a feeling it will blend with Doug's 'task', it has so far. H  

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>; mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2017, 11:22
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  This has been a fun dig.  The window of opportunity for Elizabeth being Arthur being Elizabeth's still remains if he was having dalliances with merchants wives...or she could have had him at 48, which is unlikely, but not impossible.  There seems to be a spectrum of ideas about Edward's proclivities.  I can't remember whether it was More or Mancini who accused him of being a boorish sex pest for whom anyone in a dress would do, but now J-AH is suggesting that there wasn't any proof of any mistresses and that he may have been gay.  In the early years, he did seem to have a 'type' - attractive, rich widows in their late 20s.  I haven't read this latest J-AH book, but he does seem to be contradicting himself, unless he doesn't count EB as a mistress, but as a wife.  However, Richard seems to be referring to a pattern of behaviour not just one incident, and the rumours about him were always about women.  If he wasn't 100% scrupulous about not having affairs with married women, then Elizabeth Skilling could have been a possible mistress.

As for Elizabeth, Wayte and Hampton, I did get the impression that Hampton may have been keen to encourage the marriage for personal reasons since Wayte would become very wealthy if he married Elizabeth and would be in a position to help Hampton financially.  If Elizabeth was so conflicted about the marriage that she needed encouragement from Hampton, then the court case may have given her doubts about both of them and made her vulnerable to Edward's attentions.
Nico



On Monday, 18 September 2017, 09:48:21 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

  Would have been fun though Nico! I have ES as being born in about 1435. Some genealogy sites have Agnes born in 1452, so that would be consistent. ES could of course have conceived Arthur whilst she was married. Her home seems to have been in London from her marriage to Wayte. Certainly at the date of the will 1459 Agnes isn't married or of age but she is married by 1468 when John Skilling passes Rollestone to her. Edward is supposed to have had dalliances with merchants' wives. We need John Skilling's IPM.
The strange thing about the JAH book is that he is saying that there is no proof that Edward had affairs - that it's all More etc. But by saying that isn't he contradicting TR, which effectively means that Richard was lying about his brother's lifestyle. A strange thing for a Ricardian to do. I wonder if he'd thought it through? H  PS I don't often praise Hicks but his Mapping Site is marvellous. 

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: ; mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017, 14:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Thanks Marie for sorting that out.  The timeline does change the landscape of the this.  If Elizabeth was almost consistently married until 1482, that would limit her chances to be Arthur's mother, as by this point she would be at least late 40s, probably older.  A problem with working this out is trying to approximate the ages of these people.  Hopefully, the Wynard IPM will be among those due to be added to the Mapping the Countryside site.  Elizabeth had no children with Wayte, and had a married daughter, which suggests that she was middle aged when she married him in the late 1460s. That would bring us back to Alice, Thomas Wayte's daughter again as a possible candidate for Arthur's mother, especially since Anstis narrowed down 'Elizabeth Wayte' through Arthur's connections to Thomas Wayte's nephews.  Maybe he confused the names of Thomas' daughter and his wife.  Alice does seem a bit young, given his known preference for older women, but as he got older, he may have had younger mistresses, as mid to late 20s may have been his ideal age range.  In that case, Arthur would have been considerably younger.  Whatever the facts, I think we can rule out any precontracts with Elizabeth Skilling.
Nico

On Sunday, 17 September 2017, 13:13:39 GMT+1, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  Hi all,
I have uploaded the transcript of the Hampton document to Files, but here it is with modernised spelling and punctuation:-
"Lowly beseecheth your good Lordship Thomas Hampton, of long time past by your commandment upon a wrongful and a heinous suggestion committed unto the Fleet for certain injuries surmised to be done unto Elizabeth Wynarde called the King's Widow (as reason, my Lord, with conscience, you required at the time, unto such season as the contrary might be proved by due examination of the said Elizabeth afore your good Lordship heard), whereupon the said Elizabeth, afore your Lordship and other of the lords of the King's Council duly examined of the said wrongs, the said Thomas plainly hath excused. The said Thomas Hampton, notwithstanding her said excuse so heard, at all times intending the King's pleasure, lowly submitteth him as well as the said Elizabeth to make a fine jointly with the said Elizabeth, if it require him so to do, at all times meekly beseeching your Lordship their said fine to be the less for diverse considerations that here followeth in writing. ·         The first cause: where it is so that her said husband were a man of notable livelode, Wynslade[1] saith that her said husband had never no lands in his own possession, whereof she oweth to be endowable, not passing the value of £10. ·         Also, all-were- it-so [albeit] that Thomas Hampton your said suppliant took upon him to move her to take her husband that now is, in so much as it was her own good will at all times, never coerced thereto by the said Thomas Hampton but only moving her as lawful was unto, etc. ·         Also, all-were-it- so that she was married ere she came afore your Lordship and the lords of the Council, the said Thomas Hampton never understood where she ne her said husband were from the time that he was committed unto prison (ne his wife neither, and thilk [ thus] rode she then 120 mile to have met with them, and in no wise could find them, etc). ·         Moreover, whereas ye, my Lord, by sinister information should be informed that they were not handfast afore or your servant seized her, as by his word as for the King's Widow, the contrary is truth, etc. ·         As for the bond of the obligation,it was never the said Thomas Hampton's intent that ever she should have sealed it utterly, willing her not to seal, with diverse exhortations as farforth as he might honestly with his word, ne never knowing ne assenting to the engrossing of the same. In the which matter and in all these matters the said Thomas shall do as your lordship shall adjudge or advise. Also, moreover, in the way of Christ's charity, the more pity to have because of his great age, considering his long imprisonment to his great cost and loss, and also at diverse times with great sickness to him, great heaviness and discomfort, etc."
[1] Probably John Wynslade or Wydeslade, husband of John Wynarde's daughter Agnes.
 

Yes I could make out that in 1468, Roger Keyes swore in Wydeslade. The inference in the Camden edition is as follows: 'John Winnard's will is dated 1 May 1459; though it was not proved in the PCC till 1468: but a document which accompanies it gives the reasons and indicates that Winnard died long before 1468......... the most probable date for No 67 and therefore for this document, is 1462; the reference to Sir John Beynton in No 67 shows that in any case the date cannot be later than August 1464'
Now he's right about the letter which is written from 'Our Palys of the Flete' but in the notes to that letter says Beynton's IPM was June 1465 but he could of course have died in Aug 1464. Wynnard seems however to have been involved in a deed of Dec 1464 - but that date in the Close Rolls could be also be wrong. I think it's the one that JAH took. It would be useful to find Beynton's IPM as well to confirm that. BTW I trust very few online dates any more, particularly the VCH. Quite a bit of their information turns out to be completely wrong. So like parish registers it's back to the original source. 
Do you want me or you to order Wynnard's will? I'm quite happy to pay, just let me know.
No it's not been a lot of work because it feeds into the Woodville/rebel connection as well and it's a very good discipline of trusting absolutely nothing, which is no doubt why some 'popular' historians churn out book after book using the same old sources. Thanks a million. H   

From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017, 23:11
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Hi Hilary,Interesting - I wish I'd realised it was connected before. It's rather long and I don't have time to translate it, but running my eye over it, it indicates that Wynarde had been found to own no property in the archdiocese of Canterbury other than in the diocese of Exeter, so on 31 May 1468 Bourchier instructed Roger Keys, precentor of Exeter Cathderal, to deal with it instead, in order to expedite the executor's task. Keys swore in Richard Wydslade on 8 July at Exeter catrhedral, ordering him to produce an inventory and account by St Luke's day, and then he reported back to Bourchier on 6 October.

I've started the order process for John Wynarde's IPM. It will be about a month before I actually get the copy.

Hi Marie, I never looked in the CPR how stupid of me! That's because it's not in British History Online.
There is one more in that dated 26 Nov 1468 (but it must be 1467? if so the whole pages are wrong) which appoints Humphrey Stafford to arrest Wynard (and lots of others). It's the same mission re goods taken from Flemish ships led by John Wenlock (who was Captain of Calais then I recall). By the 22 December 1467 mission Wynard has joined Humphrey in arresting some of the others and he's reportedly dead by Spring 1468. The relevant pages are 128 and 57. Or is one a mis-translation of the other? I trust nothing now.
All the rest are fine. I have some later ones of widow Wayte giving property and money to Hampton and Frost but they're probably not relevant to this issue. Back to look at Thomas Hampton. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2017, 13:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Thank a lot to everyone who has offered to chip in with the IPM.
Hilary, according to my notes, the December 1467 reference on girders.net is Wynarde being appointed to a commission, and is not about Rollestone. Below are the entries I have put together on Wynarde and the Wayte marriage. I'd be grateful if people could look through and check it for me as I've found that the Devil is nearly always in the dating when it comes to answering historical questions: -



11 August 1459  John Wydslade was granted certain lands in Cornwall and Devon formerly belonging to Humphrey Bevyle by Thomas Worth and his wife, Isabella (girders.net, Deeds 116)
22 December 1464 - Recognisance of 500 marks that John Wynarde abide by the decision of John Denys, arbiter in his dispute with John Penfoun and John Orchard (girders.net, CCR1461-8, pp.226-7)
c.27 January 1465 (quindene of Hilary 4 EIV)  Thomas Wayte and his wife Elizabeth conveyed to John Wydslade son of John Wydslade and William Estcote son of Robert Estcote of Bydeford various Skilling lands in Wiltshire and Hampshire including the manors of Rollingstone (Rolynston), Chaldryngton, Cherelton and Croyllboys, and the chase of Collingbourne Ducis by feet of fines (TNA CP 25(1)/294, M. 26 [Image 32 on the AALT website]). 
22 December 1467  John Wynarde was appointed to a commission to arrest John Rawlegh of Dartmouth and others (girders.net, CPR1467-77, p.57).
3 March 1468  Writs of diem clausit extremum issued for John Wynarde (CFR, p. 197).Note. These were writs to the sheriffs of the counties in which it was thought he might hold lands in chief, instructing the sheriff to hold and inquiry (inquisition post mortenm) and report back what day he died (diem clausit extremum), what lands he held, of whom and by what service, and the identity and age of the heir.
31 May 1468  Despite the fact that John Wynarde had held property in multiple dioceses, Cardinal Bourchier instructed Roger Keys and Henry Webber of Exeter Cathedral to take probate of his will (written in 1459) for the convenience of the executor, Richard Wydeslade, and to instruct him to submit an inventory and account by the feast of St. Luke (18 October) (TNA PROB 11/5/388).
8 July 1468  Richard Wydslade was sworn in as executor of Wynarde's will in Exeter Cathedral (TNA PROB 11/5/388).1468  Thomas Wayte's associate or relation Thomas Hampton, son of John Hampton of Stoke Charity, took upon him to move [Wynarde's widow Elizabeth Skylling] to  & [marry Wayte], in so much as it was her own good will at all times, never coerced thereto by the said Thomas Hampton but only moving her as lawful was unto, etc. (TNA SC 8/342/16150).
1468  Elizabeth Skylling, although a King's Widow' (i.e. the widow of a tenant in chief), went ahead and married Wayte without obtaining the King's licence. According to Hampton, it was never [his] intent that ever she should have sealed it utterly, willing her not to seal, with diverse exhortations as farforth as he might honestly with his word, ne never knowing ne assenting to the engrossing of the same(TNA SC 8/342/16150).
1468  Rent of 40s in Rolleston, Wilts, to Thomas Wayte, Elizabeth his wife, and John Skillyng (cat ref to Gloucester Archives D1571/E156).
1468  A third part or parties, probably seeking to exonerate Elizabeth Skylling, informed the King's Council that Thomas Hampton had tried to force Elizabeth into the marriage with Wayte, and that it had not yet been solemnised. Hampton was arrested and lodged in the Fleet prison until such time as Elizabeth could be found and questioned by the King's council. (TNA SC 8/342/16150)
1468  Hampton, according to his own testimony, had no idea where Thomas and Elizabeth were at this time, and his wife rode 120 miles in search of them  without success (TNA SC 8/342/16150)
6 October 1468  Roger Keys and Henry Webber reported back to Cardinal Bourchier that Wynarde's will had been proved and the inventory and account submitted (TNA PROB 11/5/388).
1468/9  It would seem that Elizabeth was found and seized by a crown servant and, when questioned by the King's council, confirmed her marriage to Wayte but exonerated Hampton of any blame for it (TNA SC 8/342/16150).
Early 1469?  Thomas Hampton submitted a petition to your lordship' (probably Chancellor Stillington) submitting himself to be fined jointly with Elizabeth Skylling, but pleading for a reduced fine in consideration of his ignorance of her over-hasty remarriage, the long  time he had spent in prison, his great age (although his father was still living), and Elizabeth's limited financial resources (TNA SC 8/342/16150).
15 March 1369  To the escheator in Middlesex. Order in presence of the next friends of Agnes, daughter and heir of John Wynarde esquire and wife of John Wydeslade, or of their attorneys, to assign dower to Thomas Wayte and Elizabeth his wife, late wife of John Wynarde, as for a fine paid in the hanaper the king has pardoned the trespass of the said Thomas in taking to wife Elizabeth, and her trespass in marrying him without the king's license.Like writs to the escheators in Devon and Cornwall. (CCR 1468-76, No 21)

Richard and the judiciary now span two headings but I've gone back to this one for reasons which you'll see.
A key player in the Wayte saga is Thomas Hampton from Southampton - he who was in the Fleet, I reckon at least twice. He seems to have been a sort of heir hunter for himself and his buddies. From the Stonor correspondence we know he managed to get a legacy out of the childless John Hampton of Kinver for himself. The other case he was involved with, as well as Wayte, was that of one Joan Swete, who he sometimes refers to as sister or cousin, but I can't find a tie yet. Swete set out to get her hands on the legacy of Sir Walter Romsey who died in 1403, just long enough ago for anyone who remembered him in adulthood to be dead. He did have heirs but by 1460 they were getting a bit thin. So Joan, who was married to glazier Thomas Swete of Yeovil (Somerset again) concocted an almost certainly ficititous first wife for Walter Romsey and made that wife's daughter her grandmother.  The case went on throughout the early 1460s and even involved Joan and her husband 'invading' and taking over Romsey's lands at some point. I've abbreviated the dense detail of all this to keep it brief.
However, in September 1467 Edward granted Joan, now a widow, the lands for 5 years. Those also granted it were Richard Haute, John Scot, George Darell and Richard Bole - two of whom (Haute and Scot) later were to be 1483 rebels and who certainly had strong Woodville connections. Darell was Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and died in 1474. So the King had endorsed what was almost certainly a miscarriage of justice. One wonders what Richard made of all this - you see a lot of things as deputy - and whether this made him hostile to the influence of the Woodvilles? This, and the Twynyho/Kendale inheritance issue (a forged document about Ankarette's entitlement) make one wonder how much of this was going on. The Swete case has come down to us through the Stonors, the Twynyho/Kendale document has survived in the local archives, but they were surely not the only cases?
One could see why Richard would chose to put in another independent body, The College of Arms, to bring a bit more rigour to these claims. In the CPR Garter King of Arms is appointed in November 1483, just after the rebellions. And one does wonder just how many IPM juries and escheators were susceptible to potential bribes or just pure misinformation.
However, what the above case also endorses for me is the influence of the Woodvilles and their associated families in geographical areas where you perhaps wouldn't expect them to be? H
PS Notice this seems to be as a result of the plea of a widow again.

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2017, 14:10
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

  Completely lost track with what's being posted at the moment but I will chip in too Marie..

Hi all,

Finally received the Inquisition Post Mortem from TNA. It states that John Wynard died on 2 March 1468 our style ("Idem Johannes Wynard obijt secundo die Marcij Anno regni domini Regis nunc septimo").

I'll transcribe, translate and post to Files as soon as I can.

Best,

Marie

Hi all,

Finally received the Inquisition Post Mortem from TNA. It states that John Wynard died on 2 March 1468 our style ("Idem Johannes Wynard obijt secundo die Marcij Anno regni domini Regis nunc septimo").

I'll transcribe, translate and post to Files as soon as I can.

Best,

Marie

A million thanks for this Marie. Do you need a contribution?  I'm still working round Thomas Hampton's contacts which surprisingly include Roger Tocotes. Still work in progress though. H
On Thursday, 26 October 2017, 16:36:22 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi all,

Finally received the Inquisition Post Mortem from TNA. It states that John Wynard died on 2 March 1468 our style ("Idem Johannes Wynard obijt secundo die Marcij Anno regni domini Regis nunc septimo").

I'll transcribe, translate and post to Files as soon as I can.

Best,

Marie

Pleasure, Nico. I'll check what it cost and work it out. Alternatively, if any of you will be at the Triennial next spring you can buy me a drink.

Rather than posting to files, I thought I'd just paste a translation of the IPM document here. As you see, it's the one for Middlesex. Writs to the escheators of Devon & Cornwall and Hants & Wilts were issued on 3 March, but I haven't found IPMs to go with those. The writ to the Escheator or Middlesex was issued slightly later, on 26 March.

Anyway, here it is, and it also gives the exact age of Wynarde's daughter Agnes:

"Delivered to the court on 13 May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward IV after the Conquest

Indented inquisition taken at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, on the twelfth of May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth after the Conquest, before Richard Willy, the said king's escheator in the foresaid county, by virtue of a writ addressed to the same escheator from the Lord King and sewn to this inquisition,

by swearing of William Stafford, John Hylle, Robert Burnet, William Garde, Stephen Pancost, John Wyot, Ambrose Smyth, John Colyn, John Grene, William Broun, James Fyll, John Murdon and William Chaumbur, jurors, who say on their oaths that:-

John Wynard Esquire named in the said writ was, on the day he died, seised in his demesne as of fee of two messuages with their appurtenances in the parish of St. Mary Strand (Beate Marie de Strond') in the foresaid county, and of one and a half acres of land with their appurtenances. And furthermore they say that the same messuage and land were held of the King in chief by knight service and a rent of one penny a year, and are worth yearly in all issues, after deductions, forty shillings.

And furthermore they say that, on the day he died, the same John Wynard was seised in his demesne as of fee of two acres of land with the appurtenances in the foresaid parish and county, held of the house of St. James in the Fields by knight service, which are worth yearly, after deductions, two shillings.

And furthermore they say that on the day he died the said John Wynard held no other lands or tenements in the foresaid county.of the Lord King or of anyone else in demesne, reversion or in service

And they say that the same John Wynard died on the second of March in the seventh year of the reign of the now lord king, and that Agnes, the said John's daughter, now and at the time of the same John Wynard's death the wife of John Wydeslade, is the daughter and next heir of the same John Wynard and is aged twelve years and thirty-eight weeks and more.

In witness of which the foresaid escheator and jurors have set their seals to this indented inquisition.

Dated the twelfth of May in the said eighth year at the foresaid vill of Westminster."

Rather than posting to files, I thought I'd just paste a translation of the IPM document here. As you see, it's the one for Middlesex. Writs to the escheators of Devon & Cornwall and Hants & Wilts were issued on 3 March, but I haven't found IPMs to go with those. The writ to the Escheator or Middlesex was issued slightly later, on 26 March.

Anyway, here it is, and it also gives the exact age of Wynarde's daughter Agnes:

"Delivered to the court on 13 May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward IV after the Conquest

Indented inquisition taken at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, on the twelfth of May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth after the Conquest, before Richard Willy, the said king's escheator in the foresaid county, by virtue of a writ addressed to the same escheator from the Lord King and sewn to this inquisition,

by swearing of William Stafford, John Hylle, Robert Burnet, William Garde, Stephen Pancost, John Wyot, Ambrose Smyth, John Colyn, John Grene, William Broun, James Fyll, John Murdon and William Chaumbur, jurors, who say on their oaths that:-

John Wynard Esquire named in the said writ was, on the day he died, seised in his demesne as of fee of two messuages with their appurtenances in the parish of St. Mary Strand (Beate Marie de Strond') in the foresaid county, and of one and a half acres of land with their appurtenances. And furthermore they say that the same messuage and land were held of the King in chief by knight service and a rent of one penny a year, and are worth yearly in all issues, after deductions, forty shillings.

And furthermore they say that, on the day he died, the same John Wynard was seised in his demesne as of fee of two acres of land with the appurtenances in the foresaid parish and county, held of the house of St. James in the Fields by knight service, which are worth yearly, after deductions, two shillings.

And furthermore they say that on the day he died the said John Wynard held no other lands or tenements in the foresaid county.of the Lord King or of anyone else in demesne, reversion or in service

And they say that the same John Wynard died on the second of March in the seventh year of the reign of the now lord king, and that Agnes, the said John's daughter, now and at the time of the same John Wynard's death the wife of John Wydeslade, is the daughter and next heir of the same John Wynard and is aged twelve years and thirty-eight weeks and more.

In witness of which the foresaid escheator and jurors have set their seals to this indented inquisition.

Dated the twelfth of May in the said eighth year at the foresaid vill of Westminster."

'Inspeximus by Thomas Roger and James Hobert of the charter of gift with warranty by Eleanor Boteler lately the wife of Thomas Boteler knight now deceased

Endorsement: Irrotulatur in Banco rotulo secundo de cartis scriptis et protectionibus cognitis et allocatis Termino Sancte Trinitatis anno regni E. quarti quartodecimo'

Thanks for the transcription, Marie; it certainly clarifies the picture. If Agnes was only 12 in 1469, then Joan Speke must be a cousin or niece of Wynard rather than a daughter, as her eldest child was born about 1468. Agnes is the only child and Elizabeth, who was Wynard's widow is probably her mother. Assuming Arthur wasn't born during the marriage to Wynard, Elizabeth would have been in her early 40s when she was widowed and married Wayte, so there is some chance of her being Arthur's mother, especially if the marriage to Wayte failed early on. Otherwise, his mother probably is Alice.
Nico

On Thursday, 2 November 2017, 19:46:26 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Rather than posting to files, I thought I'd just paste a translation of the IPM document here. As you see, it's the one for Middlesex. Writs to the escheators of Devon & Cornwall and Hants & Wilts were issued on 3 March, but I haven't found IPMs to go with those. The writ to the Escheator or Middlesex was issued slightly later, on 26 March.

Anyway, here it is, and it also gives the exact age of Wynarde's daughter Agnes:

"Delivered to the court on 13 May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward IV after the Conquest

Indented inquisition taken at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, on the twelfth of May in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth after the Conquest, before Richard Willy, the said king's escheator in the foresaid county, by virtue of a writ addressed to the same escheator from the Lord King and sewn to this inquisition,

by swearing of William Stafford, John Hylle, Robert Burnet, William Garde, Stephen Pancost, John Wyot, Ambrose Smyth, John Colyn, John Grene, William Broun, James Fyll, John Murdon and William Chaumbur, jurors, who say on their oaths that:-

John Wynard Esquire named in the said writ was, on the day he died, seised in his demesne as of fee of two messuages with their appurtenances in the parish of St. Mary Strand (Beate Marie de Strond') in the foresaid county, and of one and a half acres of land with their appurtenances. And furthermore they say that the same messuage and land were held of the King in chief by knight service and a rent of one penny a year, and are worth yearly in all issues, after deductions, forty shillings.

And furthermore they say that, on the day he died, the same John Wynard was seised in his demesne as of fee of two acres of land with the appurtenances in the foresaid parish and county, held of the house of St. James in the Fields by knight service, which are worth yearly, after deductions, two shillings.

And furthermore they say that on the day he died the said John Wynard held no other lands or tenements in the foresaid county.of the Lord King or of anyone else in demesne, reversion or in service

And they say that the same John Wynard died on the second of March in the seventh year of the reign of the now lord king, and that Agnes, the said John's daughter, now and at the time of the same John Wynard's death the wife of John Wydeslade, is the daughter and next heir of the same John Wynard and is aged twelve years and thirty-eight weeks and more.

In witness of which the foresaid escheator and jurors have set their seals to this indented inquisition.

Dated the twelfth of May in the said eighth year at the foresaid vill of Westminster."

Loughborough (Burleigh Court hotel at the edge of the university campus). The theme is 15thC Coventry.

Thanks, Hilary.

To be pedantic, ff Agnes was 12 years, 38 weeks (or at least less than 39 weeks) on 12 May 1468, then she would have been born 18-24 August 1455.

The Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte of JAH's theory does not exist in any contemporary document. She derives from Anstis, writing in the 1720s, who described Arthur as 'the natural son of Edw. 4 by Eliz. the Daughter of Thomas Waite of Hampshire, the Widow of Lucy'. Anstis was in turn embellishing Buck, who had declared Arthur to be the daughter of Edward's lover Dame Elizabeth Lucy, whom he identified as the daughter of 'one Waite of Southampton, a mean gentleman'. Buck was, IMO, confusing two separate mistresses.

More named Edward's known mistress of the early 1460s as Dame Elizabeth Lucy but did not name her as Arthur's mother, and Arthur's career suggests that he was much too young to have been conceived before the Woodville marriage.

There is no contemporary evidence that Thomas Waite had any daughter named Elizabeth (he had no legitimate children - at least, none living at the time of his death), and there is no evidence of any Wayte-Lucy marriage at that period (there was a notorious one in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which may have lodged in the back of Buck's brain). There is no even any evidence that any Wayte or Lucy families had anything to do with each other.

The only historical Lady Lucys at the time were named Margaret and Agnes. Margaret FitzLewis was the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington, and both alluring and game to judge by what else is known of her history; her mother was a Montagu, and she was resident at Warwick and London at different times in the early 1460s. Agnes was the second wife of Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, but we don't know when they married, only that she was his widow but he did not died until 1466; she is pretty obscure and, since her husband was still living at the time in question, can I think be ruled out.

Dame Margaret IMHO may well have been the mother of Lady Lumley, whose real name was also Margaret though she too is misnamed as Elizabeth in later Tudor documents. Margaret married in 1476, suggesting a birth year of about 1462.

Arthur definitely had connections with the Hampshire Waytes - that is borne out by the Lisle Letters and other extants docs - but nothing to do with any Lucys.

So in short, I'm really sorry, but all the evidence points against Anstis' Elizabeth Lucy, daughter of Thomas Wayte. We have no evidence for any legitimate children of Thomas Wayte. Arthur's mother seems to have been connected to the Waytes, but exactly who she was remains a mystery. I used to think maybe his mother was Elizabeth Skilling, but I'm no long sure because she was not a Wayte herself and left no Wayte issue. Unfortunately, the Waytes are not fantastically well documented.

Short title: Trappe v Button.

Plaintiffs: John Trappe and Agnes, his wife, daughter and heir of Katherine, sister of Robert Rogers.

Defendants: William Button.

Subject: Messuages and land in Alton, Harding, Manningford and Oare (Hower), late of Emma Galyon, also niece of the said Robert, son and heir of Thomas Rogers and of Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of Thomas Wayte.

Wiltshire.

3 documents

Thanks, Hilary.

To be pedantic, ff Agnes was 12 years, 38 weeks (or at least less than 39 weeks) on 12 May 1468, then she would have been born 18-24 August 1455.

The Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte of JAH's theory does not exist in any contemporary document. She derives from Anstis, writing in the 1720s, who described Arthur as 'the natural son of Edw. 4 by Eliz. the Daughter of Thomas Waite of Hampshire, the Widow of Lucy'. Anstis was in turn embellishing Buck, who had declared Arthur to be the daughter of Edward's lover Dame Elizabeth Lucy, whom he identified as the daughter of 'one Waite of Southampton, a mean gentleman'. Buck was, IMO, confusing two separate mistresses.

More named Edward's known mistress of the early 1460s as Dame Elizabeth Lucy but did not name her as Arthur's mother, and Arthur's career suggests that he was much too young to have been conceived before the Woodville marriage.

There is no contemporary evidence that Thomas Waite had any daughter named Elizabeth (he had no legitimate children - at least, none living at the time of his death), and there is no evidence of any Wayte-Lucy marriage at that period (there was a notorious one in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which may have lodged in the back of Buck's brain). There is no even any evidence that any Wayte or Lucy families had anything to do with each other.

The only historical Lady Lucys at the time were named Margaret and Agnes. Margaret FitzLewis was the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington, and both alluring and game to judge by what else is known of her history; her mother was a Montagu, and she was resident at Warwick and London at different times in the early 1460s. Agnes was the second wife of Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, but we don't know when they married, only that she was his widow but he did not died until 1466; she is pretty obscure and, since her husband was still living at the time in question, can I think be ruled out.

Dame Margaret IMHO may well have been the mother of Lady Lumley, whose real name was also Margaret though she too is misnamed as Elizabeth in later Tudor documents. Margaret married in 1476, suggesting a birth year of about 1462.

Arthur definitely had connections with the Hampshire Waytes - that is borne out by the Lisle Letters and other extants docs - but nothing to do with any Lucys.

So in short, I'm really sorry, but all the evidence points against Anstis' Elizabeth Lucy, daughter of Thomas Wayte. We have no evidence for any legitimate children of Thomas Wayte. Arthur's mother seems to have been connected to the Waytes, but exactly who she was remains a mystery. I used to think maybe his mother was Elizabeth Skilling, but I'm no long sure because she was not a Wayte herself and left no Wayte issue. Unfortunately, the Waytes are not fantastically well documented.

Hi Marie, I'm not hung up on this, it was a bit of a fun exercise after I read JAH's chapter which kind of grew when I found the 'king's widow' note. Incidentally I've not found an annotation like it on another record, even though there were lots of king's widows so did someone mark it because they thought this one was important?.
Yes I agree about Agnes, I was more hung up about Wynard's death being on the cusp of Edward's regnal year which starts on 4 March. The 2 March of 7 Edward, as you of course well know, is in 1468. Now Hampton in his Stonor letter implies that he has been languishing a long time in the Fleet but Edward in fact issues pardons to ES and Wayte very soon afterwards (though we don't I think have a day) so it must have been a very speedy second marriage.
Re Thomas Wayte there is documentary proof that there was an Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte. Here she is:
C 1/585/30Description:

Short title: Trappe v Button.

Plaintiffs: John Trappe and Agnes, his wife, daughter and heir of Katherine, sister of Robert Rogers.

Defendants: William Button.

Subject: Messuages and land in Alton, Harding, Manningford and Oare (Hower), late of Emma Galyon, also niece of the said Robert, son and heir of Thomas Rogers and of Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and heir of Thomas Wayte.

Wiltshire.

3 documents

Thanks, Hilary.

To be pedantic, ff Agnes was 12 years, 38 weeks (or at least less than 39 weeks) on 12 May 1468, then she would have been born 18-24 August 1455.

The Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Wayte of JAH's theory does not exist in any contemporary document. She derives from Anstis, writing in the 1720s, who described Arthur as 'the natural son of Edw. 4 by Eliz. the Daughter of Thomas Waite of Hampshire, the Widow of Lucy'. Anstis was in turn embellishing Buck, who had declared Arthur to be the daughter of Edward's lover Dame Elizabeth Lucy, whom he identified as the daughter of 'one Waite of Southampton, a mean gentleman'. Buck was, IMO, confusing two separate mistresses.

More named Edward's known mistress of the early 1460s as Dame Elizabeth Lucy but did not name her as Arthur's mother, and Arthur's career suggests that he was much too young to have been conceived before the Woodville marriage.

There is no contemporary evidence that Thomas Waite had any daughter named Elizabeth (he had no legitimate children - at least, none living at the time of his death), and there is no evidence of any Wayte-Lucy marriage at that period (there was a notorious one in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which may have lodged in the back of Buck's brain). There is no even any evidence that any Wayte or Lucy families had anything to do with each other.

The only historical Lady Lucys at the time were named Margaret and Agnes. Margaret FitzLewis was the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington, and both alluring and game to judge by what else is known of her history; her mother was a Montagu, and she was resident at Warwick and London at different times in the early 1460s. Agnes was the second wife of Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, but we don't know when they married, only that she was his widow but he did not died until 1466; she is pretty obscure and, since her husband was still living at the time in question, can I think be ruled out.

Dame Margaret IMHO may well have been the mother of Lady Lumley, whose real name was also Margaret though she too is misnamed as Elizabeth in later Tudor documents. Margaret married in 1476, suggesting a birth year of about 1462.

Arthur definitely had connections with the Hampshire Waytes - that is borne out by the Lisle Letters and other extants docs - but nothing to do with any Lucys.

So in short, I'm really sorry, but all the evidence points against Anstis' Elizabeth Lucy, daughter of Thomas Wayte. We have no evidence for any legitimate children of Thomas Wayte. Arthur's mother seems to have been connected to the Waytes, but exactly who she was remains a mystery. I used to think maybe his mother was Elizabeth Skilling, but I'm no long sure because she was not a Wayte herself and left no Wayte issue. Unfortunately, the Waytes are not fantastically well documented.

Hi Hilary,

It's an interesting document. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be referring to the same Thomas Wayte whom JAH identified as Lady Lucy's father, i.e. not the husband of Elizabeth Skilling.

Firstly, I have the IPMs of Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas Wayte for Hampshire and Wiltshire, and these tell us two things:

a) that the only lands he held in Wiltshire were the manors of of Chaldrington & Charlton, and manor of Crawlboys & Collingbourne Woods, held of the Queen's manor of Collingbourne Ducis. Furthrmore, these were not Wayteproperties but were held in right of his wife Elizabeth;

b) his heir was found to be his brother William, aged 30 and more. William certainly did inherit the Hampshire properties.

Somerset Heritage Centre does have a document dated 1484 which refers to a William Wayte, son and heir of Thomas Wayte, late of Maningford Bohun, Wilts (ref DD\WHb/1900-1902), so there would seem to have been a different branch of the Waytes who had Wiltshire lands. The problem is that nearly all the Waytes were named John, Thomas or William.

This document of roughly the early 1520s (give or take) names its Thomas Wayte as great-grandfather of the plaintiff, which, allowing the standard 30 years for a generation, would suggest he may have been active in the 1430s.

I have a Thomas Wayte in my notes who died in 1448 in London after making a nuncupative will. He named a manor in Berkshire, but also referred generically to lands and tenements in Wiltshire. He doesn't mention any children, only two sisters (to whom he left his Berkshire manor), one of whom, Margaret, he named and described as the wife of John Longe. He asked for his Wiltshire lands to be disposed in accordance with the wishes of his executors. According to JAH, he was indeed childless, and was succeeded by his brother John, who was the father of "our" Thomas Wayte.

This Thomas Wayte's father was also named Thomas, and was still living c. 1430. It is possible that his other daughter was named Elizabeth and was endowed with lands in Wiltshire, either by her father or by her brother's executors, but I don't have any documentary evidence for that.

It all gets very complicated - people either had no children or had many who settled in different places and founded parallel lines.

More information on those Wayte lands, from the VCH for Wiltshire Vol 10, under Parish of Wilcot:

"The fourth estate in Oare held freely of Wilcot manor was made up of two parts. Part was acquired by Robert Wayte in the right of his wife, and the land of which she was a coheir was apparently settled on him in 1419. John Wayte, probably his son, died holding the land before 1449. He was succeeded by his son Edward who then conveyed it to Thomas Wayte. It was held by William Wayte in 1482, but later passed to Thomas Rogers in the right of his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of Thomas Wayte. Their son Robert died seised of it, but without issue. His heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Catherine. Elizabeth had a daughter Emma, the wife of John Galion, and Catherine a daughter Agnes, the wife of John Trappe."

The inheritance of Segenworth & Brightstone (Hampshire) has:

Thomas Wayte I (d.1430-48)

Thomas I's son Thomas Wayte II (d. 1448-9)

Thomas I's son John Wayte (d. 1459)

John Wayte's son Thomas Wayte III, husband of Eliz. Skilling (d. 1482)

John Wayte's son William Wayte

The inheritance of Manningford/ Oare branch has:

Robert Wayte (acquired the lands in right of his wife in 1419)

John Wayte (d. bef. 1449)

John's son Edward Wayte

Thomas Wayte

Thomas' son William Wayte (fl. 1482-4)

Thomas's daughter Elizabeth Wayte wife of Thomas Rogers

Elizabeth's son Robert Rogers

Elizabeth's daughters Elizabeth and Catherine

Elizabeth's daughter Emma, wife of John Trappe, and Catherine's daughter Agnes, wife of John Galion.

So two entirely separate lines.

Think that wraps it up. It was the Hampshire Waytes with whom Arthur was connected.

Marie

More information on those Wayte lands, from the VCH for Wiltshire Vol 10, under Parish of Wilcot:

"The fourth estate in Oare held freely of Wilcot manor was made up of two parts. Part was acquired by Robert Wayte in the right of his wife, and the land of which she was a coheir was apparently settled on him in 1419. John Wayte, probably his son, died holding the land before 1449. He was succeeded by his son Edward who then conveyed it to Thomas Wayte. It was held by William Wayte in 1482, but later passed to Thomas Rogers in the right of his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of Thomas Wayte. Their son Robert died seised of it, but without issue. His heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Catherine. Elizabeth had a daughter Emma, the wife of John Galion, and Catherine a daughter Agnes, the wife of John Trappe."

The inheritance of Segenworth & Brightstone (Hampshire) has:

Thomas Wayte I (d.1430-48)

Thomas I's son Thomas Wayte II (d. 1448-9)

Thomas I's son John Wayte (d. 1459)

John Wayte's son Thomas Wayte III, husband of Eliz. Skilling (d. 1482)

John Wayte's son William Wayte

The inheritance of Manningford/ Oare branch has:

Robert Wayte (acquired the lands in right of his wife in 1419)

John Wayte (d. bef. 1449)

John's son Edward Wayte

Thomas Wayte

Thomas' son William Wayte (fl. 1482-4)

Thomas's daughter Elizabeth Wayte wife of Thomas Rogers

Elizabeth's son Robert Rogers

Elizabeth's daughters Elizabeth and Catherine

Elizabeth's daughter Emma, wife of John Trappe, and Catherine's daughter Agnes, wife of John Galion.

So two entirely separate lines.

Think that wraps it up. It was the Hampshire Waytes with whom Arthur was connected.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

It's an interesting document. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be referring to the same Thomas Wayte whom JAH identified as Lady Lucy's father, i.e. not the husband of Elizabeth Skilling.

Firstly, I have the IPMs of Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas Wayte for Hampshire and Wiltshire, and these tell us two things:

a) that the only lands he held in Wiltshire were the manors of of Chaldrington & Charlton, and manor of Crawlboys & Collingbourne Woods, held of the Queen's manor of Collingbourne Ducis. Furthrmore, these were not Wayteproperties but were held in right of his wife Elizabeth;

b) his heir was found to be his brother William, aged 30 and more. William certainly did inherit the Hampshire properties.

Somerset Heritage Centre does have a document dated 1484 which refers to a William Wayte, son and heir of Thomas Wayte, late of Maningford Bohun, Wilts (ref DD\WHb/1900-1902), so there would seem to have been a different branch of the Waytes who had Wiltshire lands. The problem is that nearly all the Waytes were named John, Thomas or William.

This document of roughly the early 1520s (give or take) names its Thomas Wayte as great-grandfather of the plaintiff, which, allowing the standard 30 years for a generation, would suggest he may have been active in the 1430s.

I have a Thomas Wayte in my notes who died in 1448 in London after making a nuncupative will. He named a manor in Berkshire, but also referred generically to lands and tenements in Wiltshire. He doesn't mention any children, only two sisters (to whom he left his Berkshire manor), one of whom, Margaret, he named and described as the wife of John Longe. He asked for his Wiltshire lands to be disposed in accordance with the wishes of his executors. According to JAH, he was indeed childless, and was succeeded by his brother John, who was the father of "our" Thomas Wayte.

This Thomas Wayte's father was also named Thomas, and was still living c. 1430. It is possible that his other daughter was named Elizabeth and was endowed with lands in Wiltshire, either by her father or by her brother's executors, but I don't have any documentary evidence for that.

It all gets very complicated - people either had no children or had many who settled in different places and founded parallel lines.

Hi Hilary.

I think we all have to agree, the Waytes of Maningford Bohun are a red herring, whatever their exact genealogy.

The Thomas Wayte of the 1468 pardon is described as a citizen of London, so again I'm not sure this is Thomas of Segenworth & Brighstone (Wayte's Court). There were lots of people around with the same name back then, just as there are today. Genealogy is a minefield. It doesn't exactly say the two have misappropriated property either. They were the executors of the will of Margaret Bate of London, and the pardon was "of all claim the king may [not the tense] have against them for any jewels, merchandise and sums of money late of the said Margaret."

I don't know what it's about but it sounds like a cover-all rather than relating to specific items.

In the same way, without more information I don't think we can assume Elizabeth Skilling was pushed into marrying Thomas Wayte by Thomas Hampton.

I'd be inclined to favour Elizabeth Skilling, like Nicholas, as Arthur's mother, except for her age, the fact that it wouldn't have given Arthur any Wayte blood and he was later given charge of the Wayte estates when the holder became incapacitated, and because from what we can tell Edward tended to avoid women who were actively married. On reflection, I think we have the name Elizabeth only because Buck had conflated Ms. Wayte with Lady Lucy, and More had named Lady Lucy as Elizabeth (possibly in turn confusing her with Elizabeth Lambert). The only daughter of Thomas of Segenworth who is recorded is bastard Alice, but we have no idea when she was born; she could be a good candidate, or not, depending. Alternatively, Anstis may have been wrong and the lady may have been a daughter of Thomas's brother William (Buck did not name the lady's father). Or . . .

More information on those Wayte lands, from the VCH for Wiltshire Vol 10, under Parish of Wilcot:

"The fourth estate in Oare held freely of Wilcot manor was made up of two parts. Part was acquired by Robert Wayte in the right of his wife, and the land of which she was a coheir was apparently settled on him in 1419. John Wayte, probably his son, died holding the land before 1449. He was succeeded by his son Edward who then conveyed it to Thomas Wayte. It was held by William Wayte in 1482, but later passed to Thomas Rogers in the right of his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of Thomas Wayte. Their son Robert died seised of it, but without issue. His heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Catherine. Elizabeth had a daughter Emma, the wife of John Galion, and Catherine a daughter Agnes, the wife of John Trappe."

The inheritance of Segenworth & Brightstone (Hampshire) has:

Thomas Wayte I (d.1430-48)

Thomas I's son Thomas Wayte II (d. 1448-9)

Thomas I's son John Wayte (d. 1459)

John Wayte's son Thomas Wayte III, husband of Eliz. Skilling (d. 1482)

John Wayte's son William Wayte

The inheritance of Manningford/ Oare branch has:

Robert Wayte (acquired the lands in right of his wife in 1419)

John Wayte (d. bef. 1449)

John's son Edward Wayte

Thomas Wayte

Thomas' son William Wayte (fl. 1482-4)

Thomas's daughter Elizabeth Wayte wife of Thomas Rogers

Elizabeth's son Robert Rogers

Elizabeth's daughters Elizabeth and Catherine

Elizabeth's daughter Emma, wife of John Trappe, and Catherine's daughter Agnes, wife of John Galion.

So two entirely separate lines.

Think that wraps it up. It was the Hampshire Waytes with whom Arthur was connected.

Marie

Excellent digging Hilary and Marie! How that it is clear that the Wiltshire and Hampshire Waytes are separate families, and it is Hampshire that is relevant, then chances are it is either Elizabeth or her daughter in law, Alice. Both Buck and Anstis could have been confused and assumed that Elizabeth was born a Wayte rather than having married into the family.

Favouring Elizabeth (ES): Being a 'King's widow' - EW and EB were also involved in marital property disputes; London connection; murky circumstances surrounding the marriage to Wayte; slightly older than Edward and close in age to EB and EW. If Arthur was born 1469/70, ES would have been about 35. Actually, if she was a long term mistress, she could reasonably have been his mother up to about 1480.

Favouring Alice: If Wayte was born later, Alice's age would make her the more likely candidate. If Arthur was born after Wayte died (1483/4), then ES would have been in her late 40s (unlikely though not impossible). Maybe Anstis or Buck mixed up the names.
If the two, I lean towards ES, with Arthur being born in the 1470s, which would be more consistent with his career.
Nico



On Saturday, 4 November 2017, 19:50:15 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

More information on those Wayte lands, from the VCH for Wiltshire Vol 10, under Parish of Wilcot:

"The fourth estate in Oare held freely of Wilcot manor was made up of two parts. Part was acquired by Robert Wayte in the right of his wife, and the land of which she was a coheir was apparently settled on him in 1419. John Wayte, probably his son, died holding the land before 1449. He was succeeded by his son Edward who then conveyed it to Thomas Wayte. It was held by William Wayte in 1482, but later passed to Thomas Rogers in the right of his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of Thomas Wayte. Their son Robert died seised of it, but without issue. His heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Catherine. Elizabeth had a daughter Emma, the wife of John Galion, and Catherine a daughter Agnes, the wife of John Trappe."

The inheritance of Segenworth & Brightstone (Hampshire) has:

Thomas Wayte I (d.1430-48)

Thomas I's son Thomas Wayte II (d. 1448-9)

Thomas I's son John Wayte (d. 1459)

John Wayte's son Thomas Wayte III, husband of Eliz. Skilling (d. 1482)

John Wayte's son William Wayte

The inheritance of Manningford/ Oare branch has:

Robert Wayte (acquired the lands in right of his wife in 1419)

John Wayte (d. bef. 1449)

John's son Edward Wayte

Thomas Wayte

Thomas' son William Wayte (fl. 1482-4)

Thomas's daughter Elizabeth Wayte wife of Thomas Rogers

Elizabeth's son Robert Rogers

Elizabeth's daughters Elizabeth and Catherine

Elizabeth's daughter Emma, wife of John Trappe, and Catherine's daughter Agnes, wife of John Galion.

So two entirely separate lines.

Think that wraps it up. It was the Hampshire Waytes with whom Arthur was connected.

Marie

Hilary,

Sorry, the Wiltshire line appears to an offshoot, with Robert coming into Maningford by marriage c.1419. The main branch had held Brighstone IOW since at least 1321.

You may recall that Stephen and I had an article on Lady Lumley's parentage published in The Ricardian. We did a lot of genealogical background work for that, including on the Waytes. The identity of the Thomas Wayte who died in 1449 and left a will is not something I was able to confirm. I think you may be right, and that it is very possible that he was of Maningford, although he doesn't name his Wiltshire lands. John AH believed he belonged to the Brighstone branch, and was married to Margaret Popham, but his Hampshire IPM found only that he owned a moiety of the manor of Barton Stacy. Also, if he was ancestor of "our" Thomas Wayte , then his Wilsthire lands must have been settled elsewhere or enfeoffed as "our" Thomas (d. 1482) owned nothing in Wiltshire. I think JAH may have relied on later genealogies, and of course those may or may not be reliable. On the other hand, he well may be right as later IPMs missed Segenworth and Brighstone, which were perhaps enfeoffed, and we do have a Thomas and a Margaret at Segenworth in the 1420s.

What I can tell you for sure, from contemporary docs that include references to property, is:

William Wayte held Brighstone, probably in right of his wife Agnes, and died 1321.

Agnes was succeeded by their son Thomas Wayte.

1359 - Thomas Wayte referred to as of 'next to Titchfield' - this would be Segenworth.

Thomas was succeeded by his son John.

1414 - Thomas Wayte son of John won a lawsuit over ownership of Brighstone.

1428 - Thomas Wayte and the Abbot of Titchfield shared Titchfield, but it also names the Wayte share, Segenworth, as being held by Margaret Wayte).

Then I have no clear references to Brighstone (Wayte's Court) for many years - this is the awkward bit.

1453-9 - John Wayte appears with regard to both Titchfield and Brighstone.

1459-61 - John Wayte died. Despite the above evidence, his IPM claims he owned nothing in Hampshire. Probably he had enfeoffed the properties in order for his heir to avoid paying a fee to enter them.

Then comes Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas Wayte. I've found no references to link him definitively to either Wayte's Court or Segenworth, and checking his Hampshire IPM, like John's it actually states that he had no lands in the county. His heir was his brother William.

Then I have to jump to a document of the late 1520s, which I'm afraid I have to recall from memory. But anyway we then have a John Wayte at Brighstone who had inherited from his brother Thomas who had enfeoffed his property to Richard Fox when he was Bishop of Winchester (i.e. after 1501). This Thomas had inherited from their father John.

To really sort out these families would take a lot of work and patience. It would be interesting but I can't see that it is likely to enable us to identify Arthur's mother. Probably the first thing would be to get the IPMs of Thomas (1449) and John (c. 1460) and any other Waytes who have IPMs, to get the names and ages of their heirs - the information I have on all the IPMs except the one for Thomas, 1482, comes from published summaries.

Marie wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 00:44:07 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary,

Sorry, the Wiltshire line appears to an offshoot, with Robert coming into Maningford by marriage c.1419. The main branch had held Brighstone IOW since at least 1321.

You may recall that Stephen and I had an article on Lady Lumley's parentage published in The Ricardian. We did a lot of genealogical background work for that, including on the Waytes. The identity of the Thomas Wayte who died in 1449 and left a will is not something I was able to confirm. I think you may be right, and that it is very possible that he was of Maningford, although he doesn't name his Wiltshire lands. John AH believed he belonged to the Brighstone branch, and was married to Margaret Popham, but his Hampshire IPM found only that he owned a moiety of the manor of Barton Stacy. Also, if he was ancestor of "our" Thomas Wayte , then his Wilsthire lands must have been settled elsewhere or enfeoffed as "our" Thomas (d. 1482) owned nothing in Wiltshire. I think JAH may have relied on later genealogies, and of course those may or may not be reliable. On the other hand, he well may be right as later IPMs missed Segenworth and Brighstone, which were perhaps enfeoffed, and we do have a Thomas and a Margaret at Segenworth in the 1420s.

What I can tell you for sure, from contemporary docs that include references to property, is:

William Wayte held Brighstone, probably in right of his wife Agnes, and died 1321.

Agnes was succeeded by their son Thomas Wayte.

1359 - Thomas Wayte referred to as of 'next to Titchfield' - this would be Segenworth.

Thomas was succeeded by his son John.

1414 - Thomas Wayte son of John won a lawsuit over ownership of Brighstone.

1428 - Thomas Wayte and the Abbot of Titchfield shared Titchfield, but it also names the Wayte share, Segenworth, as being held by Margaret Wayte).

Then I have no clear references to Brighstone (Wayte's Court) for many years - this is the awkward bit.

1453-9 - John Wayte appears with regard to both Titchfield and Brighstone.

1459-61 - John Wayte died. Despite the above evidence, his IPM claims he owned nothing in Hampshire. Probably he had enfeoffed the properties in order for his heir to avoid paying a fee to enter them.

Then comes Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas Wayte. I've found no references to link him definitively to either Wayte's Court or Segenworth, and checking his Hampshire IPM, like John's it actually states that he had no lands in the county. His heir was his brother William.

Then I have to jump to a document of the late 1520s, which I'm afraid I have to recall from memory. But anyway we then have a John Wayte at Brighstone who had inherited from his brother Thomas who had enfeoffed his property to Richard Fox when he was Bishop of Winchester (i.e. after 1501). This Thomas had inherited from their father John.

To really sort out these families would take a lot of work and patience. It would be interesting but I can't see that it is likely to enable us to identify Arthur's mother. Probably the first thing would be to get the IPMs of Thomas (1449) and John (c. 1460) and any other Waytes who have IPMs, to get the names and ages of their heirs - the information I have on all the IPMs except the one for Thomas, 1482, comes from published summaries.

Nico asked:

Which source says he avoided married women, and which one says he had affairs with merchant's wives in London?Which source says he avoided married women, and which one says he had affairs with merchant's wives in London?

Marie replies:

I don't think any strictly contemporary source says either, but of the women we know anything about - Eleanor Butler, Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret (FitzLewis) Lucy and Elizabeth (Lambert) Shore - three were widows and the other was divorced. Edward even seems to have helped Mistress Shore to get her annulment from the Pope after her petition had been rejected by the Bishop of London, and he may have done so in order to clear a path for himself.

I suspect the merchants wives idea got built up around the traditional story of 'Jane' Shore.

By Edward Wayte, of Overton, son and heir of John Wayte, deceased to Thomas Wayte, of all his lands in Manyngford Bohun, Wyke, Wodeburgh Merden, Cuonk and Oare, Co. Southt.

Witn. Thomas Burdon, William Wyllye, John Schadwell, etc.

Dated, 12 Sept. 28 Hen. VI [1449].

Hilary,

Sorry, the Wiltshire line appears to an offshoot, with Robert coming into Maningford by marriage c.1419. The main branch had held Brighstone IOW since at least 1321.

You may recall that Stephen and I had an article on Lady Lumley's parentage published in The Ricardian. We did a lot of genealogical background work for that, including on the Waytes. The identity of the Thomas Wayte who died in 1449 and left a will is not something I was able to confirm. I think you may be right, and that it is very possible that he was of Maningford, although he doesn't name his Wiltshire lands. John AH believed he belonged to the Brighstone branch, and was married to Margaret Popham, but his Hampshire IPM found only that he owned a moiety of the manor of Barton Stacy. Also, if he was ancestor of "our" Thomas Wayte , then his Wilsthire lands must have been settled elsewhere or enfeoffed as "our" Thomas (d. 1482) owned nothing in Wiltshire. I think JAH may have relied on later genealogies, and of course those may or may not be reliable. On the other hand, he well may be right as later IPMs missed Segenworth and Brighstone, which were perhaps enfeoffed, and we do have a Thomas and a Margaret at Segenworth in the 1420s.

What I can tell you for sure, from contemporary docs that include references to property, is:

William Wayte held Brighstone, probably in right of his wife Agnes, and died 1321.

Agnes was succeeded by their son Thomas Wayte.

1359 - Thomas Wayte referred to as of 'next to Titchfield' - this would be Segenworth.

Thomas was succeeded by his son John.

1414 - Thomas Wayte son of John won a lawsuit over ownership of Brighstone.

1428 - Thomas Wayte and the Abbot of Titchfield shared Titchfield, but it also names the Wayte share, Segenworth, as being held by Margaret Wayte).

Then I have no clear references to Brighstone (Wayte's Court) for many years - this is the awkward bit.

1453-9 - John Wayte appears with regard to both Titchfield and Brighstone.

1459-61 - John Wayte died. Despite the above evidence, his IPM claims he owned nothing in Hampshire. Probably he had enfeoffed the properties in order for his heir to avoid paying a fee to enter them.

Then comes Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas Wayte. I've found no references to link him definitively to either Wayte's Court or Segenworth, and checking his Hampshire IPM, like John's it actually states that he had no lands in the county. His heir was his brother William.

Then I have to jump to a document of the late 1520s, which I'm afraid I have to recall from memory. But anyway we then have a John Wayte at Brighstone who had inherited from his brother Thomas who had enfeoffed his property to Richard Fox when he was Bishop of Winchester (i.e. after 1501). This Thomas had inherited from their father John.

To really sort out these families would take a lot of work and patience. It would be interesting but I can't see that it is likely to enable us to identify Arthur's mother. Probably the first thing would be to get the IPMs of Thomas (1449) and John (c. 1460) and any other Waytes who have IPMs, to get the names and ages of their heirs - the information I have on all the IPMs except the one for Thomas, 1482, comes from published summaries.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, my earliest Wayte is John le Wayte of Chilton Cauntelo (died 1362) who has an IPM and left heir Robert

Marie:

I've just looked up his IPM - his heir was his son Guy, aged 2 and more (Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol XI, No. 452).

Hilary:

. . . Robert whose son John seems to have come from Seginworth and married Margaret Disney.

Marie:

I'm afraid I'm lost. Could you walk me through your sources?

First, I don't know what Robert we are talking about now, since John of Chilton Cauntelow, Som, was succeeded by Guy.

Is this coming from online genealogies? What they have done, it seems to me, is to make a huge but understandable mistake and interpret the family tree of the Waytes of Waytes Court in the Visitation of Hampshire as representing those of the 15th and early 16th centuries - this I seem to recall is because the Visitation 's full title is "The Visitation of Hampshire 1530", but if you read the small print you see that it is based on several genealogical compilations ranging from 1520 to 1634, and the Wayte tree is based on the last of these. The tree ends with Alexander Wayte, and his offspring, and there is only one documented Alexander Wayte of Wayte's Court, I.e. the one who sold it in the 17th century. This tree starts with Alexander's great-grandfather John Wayte, father of the John Wayte who married Margaret, daughter of William Disney Esquire. There was certainly a John Wayte of Wayte's court whose widow Margaret remarried in 1550. Then you have John and Margaret's son Thomas Wayte, and then his children, of whom Alexander was the heir.

I grappled quite a while with this one, as the procession of heirs simply did not tie up with the 15th-century records which I found, and then finally the penny dropped.

Hilary wrote:

He was succeeded by John (IPM 1459) of Wilcot,

Marie:

How have you identified the John Wayte who died in 1459 with Wilcot? I can find only one IPM for him, and that is for Hampshire. Unfortunately, the summary does not name his heir.

Hilary

. . . whose son was Edward, the husband of Margaret Popham. JAH has her married to a John but the two names seem interchangeable in a number of records.

Marie:

If interchangeable in records, I guess then you do not mean contemporary records?

Hilary:

JAH I recall, has their son Thomas dead in 1449. I have his will which is quite brief and he seems to have been a lawyer at the Middle Temple. I can see no mention of family or lands. According to genealogies he had two sisters, one married to William Vyell and Sir John Scales and the other to John Long, the son of Robert Long (whom Margaret married) and his first wife.

Marie:

We've talked about this will a lot, haven't we? I mentioned it first a few posts back as, inevitably, I had looked at it when researching the Lady Lumley article. He describes himself as of the New Temple, and does mention estates and sisters. This is the rough transcript which I made, with these things marked in bold (apologies for the layout):

In dei nomine vltimo die mensis Decembris Anno domini Mo CCCCo quadragesimo octauo Thomas Wayte de Nouo Temple London' langens in extremis coram testibus subscriptis testamentum suum nuncupatiuum continens voluntatem suum vltimam condidit in hunc modum

I'm afraid I just can't spend any more time on this - I have to go away in a couple of days. Hope you get the branches sorted out a bit more clearly. Incidentally, there is a second Hampshire line to be aware of as well - that of Denmead and Wymering.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, my earliest Wayte is John le Wayte of Chilton Cauntelo (died 1362) who has an IPM and left heir Robert

Marie:

I've just looked up his IPM - his heir was his son Guy, aged 2 and more (Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol XI, No. 452).

Hilary:

. . . Robert whose son John seems to have come from Seginworth and married Margaret Disney.

Marie:

I'm afraid I'm lost. Could you walk me through your sources?

First, I don't know what Robert we are talking about now, since John of Chilton Cauntelow, Som, was succeeded by Guy.

Is this coming from online genealogies? What they have done, it seems to me, is to make a huge but understandable mistake and interpret the family tree of the Waytes of Waytes Court in the Visitation of Hampshire as representing those of the 15th and early 16th centuries - this I seem to recall is because the Visitation 's full title is "The Visitation of Hampshire 1530", but if you read the small print you see that it is based on several genealogical compilations ranging from 1520 to 1634, and the Wayte tree is based on the last of these. The tree ends with Alexander Wayte, and his offspring, and there is only one documented Alexander Wayte of Wayte's Court, I.e. the one who sold it in the 17th century. This tree starts with Alexander's great-grandfather John Wayte, father of the John Wayte who married Margaret, daughter of William Disney Esquire. There was certainly a John Wayte of Wayte's court whose widow Margaret remarried in 1550. Then you have John and Margaret's son Thomas Wayte, and then his children, of whom Alexander was the heir.

I grappled quite a while with this one, as the procession of heirs simply did not tie up with the 15th-century records which I found, and then finally the penny dropped.

Hilary wrote:

He was succeeded by John (IPM 1459) of Wilcot,

Marie:

How have you identified the John Wayte who died in 1459 with Wilcot? I can find only one IPM for him, and that is for Hampshire. Unfortunately, the summary does not name his heir.

Hilary

. . . whose son was Edward, the husband of Margaret Popham. JAH has her married to a John but the two names seem interchangeable in a number of records.

Marie:

If interchangeable in records, I guess then you do not mean contemporary records?

Hilary:

JAH I recall, has their son Thomas dead in 1449. I have his will which is quite brief and he seems to have been a lawyer at the Middle Temple. I can see no mention of family or lands. According to genealogies he had two sisters, one married to William Vyell and Sir John Scales and the other to John Long, the son of Robert Long (whom Margaret married) and his first wife.

Marie:

We've talked about this will a lot, haven't we? I mentioned it first a few posts back as, inevitably, I had looked at it when researching the Lady Lumley article. He describes himself as of the New Temple, and does mention estates and sisters. This is the rough transcript which I made, with these things marked in bold (apologies for the layout):

In dei nomine vltimo die mensis Decembris Anno domini Mo CCCCo quadragesimo octauo Thomas Wayte de Nouo Temple London' langens in extremis coram testibus subscriptis testamentum suum nuncupatiuum continens voluntatem suum vltimam condidit in hunc modum

I'm afraid I just can't spend any more time on this - I have to go away in a couple of days. Hope you get the branches sorted out a bit more clearly. Incidentally, there is a second Hampshire line to be aware of as well - that of Denmead and Wymering.

Hi Marie, yes I have Guy too, born 1360.
Late now but will come back to you tomorrow.
I don't use online genealogies unless there is a serious discussion with sources, usually from the US and Douglas Richardson. They can sometimes reach a very high level indeed.
As I said, I trust nothing unless it is backed up by contemporary sources. I'd just get slapped down on here if I did :) Cheers H
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 20:59:13 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, my earliest Wayte is John le Wayte of Chilton Cauntelo (died 1362) who has an IPM and left heir Robert

Marie:

I've just looked up his IPM - his heir was his son Guy, aged 2 and more (Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol XI, No. 452).

Hilary:

. . . Robert whose son John seems to have come from Seginworth and married Margaret Disney.

Marie:

I'm afraid I'm lost. Could you walk me through your sources?

First, I don't know what Robert we are talking about now, since John of Chilton Cauntelow, Som, was succeeded by Guy.

Is this coming from online genealogies? What they have done, it seems to me, is to make a huge but understandable mistake and interpret the family tree of the Waytes of Waytes Court in the Visitation of Hampshire as representing those of the 15th and early 16th centuries - this I seem to recall is because the Visitation 's full title is "The Visitation of Hampshire 1530", but if you read the small print you see that it is based on several genealogical compilations ranging from 1520 to 1634, and the Wayte tree is based on the last of these. The tree ends with Alexander Wayte, and his offspring, and there is only one documented Alexander Wayte of Wayte's Court, I.e. the one who sold it in the 17th century. This tree starts with Alexander's great-grandfather John Wayte, father of the John Wayte who married Margaret, daughter of William Disney Esquire. There was certainly a John Wayte of Wayte's court whose widow Margaret remarried in 1550. Then you have John and Margaret's son Thomas Wayte, and then his children, of whom Alexander was the heir.

I grappled quite a while with this one, as the procession of heirs simply did not tie up with the 15th-century records which I found, and then finally the penny dropped.

Hilary wrote:

He was succeeded by John (IPM 1459) of Wilcot,

Marie:

How have you identified the John Wayte who died in 1459 with Wilcot? I can find only one IPM for him, and that is for Hampshire. Unfortunately, the summary does not name his heir.

Hilary

. . . whose son was Edward, the husband of Margaret Popham. JAH has her married to a John but the two names seem interchangeable in a number of records.

Marie:

If interchangeable in records, I guess then you do not mean contemporary records?

Hilary:

JAH I recall, has their son Thomas dead in 1449. I have his will which is quite brief and he seems to have been a lawyer at the Middle Temple. I can see no mention of family or lands. According to genealogies he had two sisters, one married to William Vyell and Sir John Scales and the other to John Long, the son of Robert Long (whom Margaret married) and his first wife.

Marie:

We've talked about this will a lot, haven't we? I mentioned it first a few posts back as, inevitably, I had looked at it when researching the Lady Lumley article. He describes himself as of the New Temple, and does mention estates and sisters. This is the rough transcript which I made, with these things marked in bold (apologies for the layout):

In dei nomine vltimo die mensis Decembris Anno domini Mo CCCCo quadragesimo octauo Thomas Wayte de Nouo Temple London' langens in extremis coram testibus subscriptis testamentum suum nuncupatiuum continens voluntatem suum vltimam condidit in hunc modum

I'm afraid I just can't spend any more time on this - I have to go away in a couple of days. Hope you get the branches sorted out a bit more clearly. Incidentally, there is a second Hampshire line to be aware of as well - that of Denmead and Wymering.

Thanks for the clarification, Marie. Edward did seem to like a particular type of woman, and it is likely that his reputation has been a bit exaggerated. This tends to reflect well on him, as he was probably seeking genuine companionship in his relationships. Elizabeth could fit in with that too, even if Edward avoided married women. Wayte's motivation in marrying Elizabeth doesn't appear entirely honest, so that may have undermined the marriage and they may have separated for some time. However, unlike Jane Shore, she wouldn't have qualified for an annulment and she left money to Wayte's daughter in her will, so they must have reconciled at some stage. Perhaps Arthur's birth could have encouraged that.
Nico
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 21:09:20 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie, yes I have Guy too, born 1360.
Late now but will come back to you tomorrow.
I don't use online genealogies unless there is a serious discussion with sources, usually from the US and Douglas Richardson. They can sometimes reach a very high level indeed.
As I said, I trust nothing unless it is backed up by contemporary sources. I'd just get slapped down on here if I did :) Cheers H
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 20:59:13 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, my earliest Wayte is John le Wayte of Chilton Cauntelo (died 1362) who has an IPM and left heir Robert

Marie:

I've just looked up his IPM - his heir was his son Guy, aged 2 and more (Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol XI, No. 452).

Hilary:

. . . Robert whose son John seems to have come from Seginworth and married Margaret Disney.

Marie:

I'm afraid I'm lost. Could you walk me through your sources?

First, I don't know what Robert we are talking about now, since John of Chilton Cauntelow, Som, was succeeded by Guy.

Is this coming from online genealogies? What they have done, it seems to me, is to make a huge but understandable mistake and interpret the family tree of the Waytes of Waytes Court in the Visitation of Hampshire as representing those of the 15th and early 16th centuries - this I seem to recall is because the Visitation 's full title is "The Visitation of Hampshire 1530", but if you read the small print you see that it is based on several genealogical compilations ranging from 1520 to 1634, and the Wayte tree is based on the last of these. The tree ends with Alexander Wayte, and his offspring, and there is only one documented Alexander Wayte of Wayte's Court, I.e. the one who sold it in the 17th century. This tree starts with Alexander's great-grandfather John Wayte, father of the John Wayte who married Margaret, daughter of William Disney Esquire. There was certainly a John Wayte of Wayte's court whose widow Margaret remarried in 1550. Then you have John and Margaret's son Thomas Wayte, and then his children, of whom Alexander was the heir.

I grappled quite a while with this one, as the procession of heirs simply did not tie up with the 15th-century records which I found, and then finally the penny dropped.

Hilary wrote:

He was succeeded by John (IPM 1459) of Wilcot,

Marie:

How have you identified the John Wayte who died in 1459 with Wilcot? I can find only one IPM for him, and that is for Hampshire. Unfortunately, the summary does not name his heir.

Hilary

. . . whose son was Edward, the husband of Margaret Popham. JAH has her married to a John but the two names seem interchangeable in a number of records.

Marie:

If interchangeable in records, I guess then you do not mean contemporary records?

Hilary:

JAH I recall, has their son Thomas dead in 1449. I have his will which is quite brief and he seems to have been a lawyer at the Middle Temple. I can see no mention of family or lands. According to genealogies he had two sisters, one married to William Vyell and Sir John Scales and the other to John Long, the son of Robert Long (whom Margaret married) and his first wife.

Marie:

We've talked about this will a lot, haven't we? I mentioned it first a few posts back as, inevitably, I had looked at it when researching the Lady Lumley article. He describes himself as of the New Temple, and does mention estates and sisters. This is the rough transcript which I made, with these things marked in bold (apologies for the layout):

In dei nomine vltimo die mensis Decembris Anno domini Mo CCCCo quadragesimo octauo Thomas Wayte de Nouo Temple London' langens in extremis coram testibus subscriptis testamentum suum nuncupatiuum continens voluntatem suum vltimam condidit in hunc modum

I'm afraid I just can't spend any more time on this - I have to go away in a couple of days. Hope you get the branches sorted out a bit more clearly. Incidentally, there is a second Hampshire line to be aware of as well - that of Denmead and Wymering.

Hi Nico,

I don't know what Wayte's motivation was in marrying Elizabeth Skilling, but everybody married for financial reasons back then.

All we know about the marriage kerfuffle is that her marriage to Wayte was brokered by Thomas Hampton, and that she married Wayte extremely quickly, perhaps no more than than six months after Wynarde's death, and without applying for royal licence. When this got her in trouble, a third party on her behalf tried to exonerate her by telling the King's council Hampton had pushed her into it, and Hampton was arrested and thrown into the Fleet.

If Elizabeth had really been forced into the marriage she could possibly still have got an annulment if she'd held out (although consensual sex usually ruled this out, I've come across another consummated marriage where an annulment on grounds of force went through with royal backing), so she would surely have confirmed the allegation, but instead she excused Thomas to the Council. Only Thomas and Elizabeth were fined so far as we can make out.

So the other way of looking at it is that Elizabeth couldn't wait to marry Wayte (sorry for pun).

Hi Nico,

I don't know what Wayte's motivation was in marrying Elizabeth Skilling, but everybody married for financial reasons back then.

All we know about the marriage kerfuffle is that her marriage to Wayte was brokered by Thomas Hampton, and that she married Wayte extremely quickly, perhaps no more than than six months after Wynarde's death, and without applying for royal licence. When this got her in trouble, a third party on her behalf tried to exonerate her by telling the King's council Hampton had pushed her into it, and Hampton was arrested and thrown into the Fleet.

If Elizabeth had really been forced into the marriage she could possibly still have got an annulment if she'd held out (although consensual sex usually ruled this out, I've come across another consummated marriage where an annulment on grounds of force went through with royal backing), so she would surely have confirmed the allegation, but instead she excused Thomas to the Council. Only Thomas and Elizabeth were fined so far as we can make out.

So the other way of looking at it is that Elizabeth couldn't wait to marry Wayte (sorry for pun).

Hi Hilary - just to help you on a bit more.

The Manningford (Wilts) Waytes info in the VCH is based on the following two sources:-

1) Final concord dated 1 month after Easter, 7 Henry V, in which Robert Wayte and Isabel his wife, and John Grey and Christine his wife conveyed lands in Maningford Boun, etc, to John Byrd and Richard Harden, who were presumably to act as their feoffees (TNA CP 25/1/256/60/32 - you can find the image on the AALT website). I imagine the wives were sisters and coheiresses.

2) Grant dated 12 September 1449 by Edward Wayte, of Overton, son and heir of John Wayte, deceased, to Thomas Wayte, of all his lands in Manyngford Bohun, Wyke, Wodeburgh Merden, Cuonk and Oare, Southampton. (cat ref to Somerset Record Office DD\WHb/1897)

So that is why the VCH says the Maningford Waytes went Robert> John> Edward. But as you can see, the Maningford John Wayte was dead by 1449 so is clearly not the John Wayte of the 1459/61 IPM, and the Thomas to whom he conveyed Maningford B. cannot have been Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas as it is too early for him. Nor is it Thomas of New Temple as he was several months dead at the time of this transaction. It is reasonable to suppose it was a close relative of Edward's, not one of the Hampshire Waytes at all.

Plus bear in mind: Thomas of Wayte's Court (Eliz. Skilling's Thomas) leaves no children, just a *brother* William, who passes on to a John Wayte.

Whereas Thomas of Maningford B. leaves a *son* William, who inherits but is childless, so the male line dies out and the lands go to his sister Elizabeth.

There is *no* Edward Wayte on the Brighstone line, the one that concerns us. There is one on the Wymering Denmead line, though, so you need to be careful not to mix him up with Edward of Manningford Bohun.

There are also prominent Waytes in London, including a draper named Thomas, and a landowner named William Wayte in Norfolk in the late 15th century.

Hi Hilary - just to help you on a bit more.

The Manningford (Wilts) Waytes info in the VCH is based on the following two sources:-

1) Final concord dated 1 month after Easter, 7 Henry V, in which Robert Wayte and Isabel his wife, and John Grey and Christine his wife conveyed lands in Maningford Boun, etc, to John Byrd and Richard Harden, who were presumably to act as their feoffees (TNA CP 25/1/256/60/32 - you can find the image on the AALT website). I imagine the wives were sisters and coheiresses.

2) Grant dated 12 September 1449 by Edward Wayte, of Overton, son and heir of John Wayte, deceased, to Thomas Wayte, of all his lands in Manyngford Bohun, Wyke, Wodeburgh Merden, Cuonk and Oare, Southampton. (cat ref to Somerset Record Office DD\WHb/1897)

So that is why the VCH says the Maningford Waytes went Robert> John> Edward. But as you can see, the Maningford John Wayte was dead by 1449 so is clearly not the John Wayte of the 1459/61 IPM, and the Thomas to whom he conveyed Maningford B. cannot have been Elizabeth Skilling's Thomas as it is too early for him. Nor is it Thomas of New Temple as he was several months dead at the time of this transaction. It is reasonable to suppose it was a close relative of Edward's, not one of the Hampshire Waytes at all.

Plus bear in mind: Thomas of Wayte's Court (Eliz. Skilling's Thomas) leaves no children, just a *brother* William, who passes on to a John Wayte.

Whereas Thomas of Maningford B. leaves a *son* William, who inherits but is childless, so the male line dies out and the lands go to his sister Elizabeth.

There is *no* Edward Wayte on the Brighstone line, the one that concerns us. There is one on the Wymering Denmead line, though, so you need to be careful not to mix him up with Edward of Manningford Bohun.

There are also prominent Waytes in London, including a draper named Thomas, and a landowner named William Wayte in Norfolk in the late 15th century.

30 January 1466  Thomas Wayte, esquire, and merchant [of Hants] Creditor: John Veel, then Mayor of Winchester, and the community of the city. Amount: £100. Before whom: William Nicholl, Mayor of Southampton; John Fleming, Clerk. When taken: 01/02/1423 First term: 25/03/1423 Last term: 25/03/1423 Writ to: Sheriff of [Hants] Sent by: Gilbert Cornmonger, Mayor of Southampton. Endorsement: .... (cat ref. TNA C 241/191/9)

It's odd because it's an old debt, a record of a loan taken out in 1423, and sent into Chancery in 1466 by the then mayor of Southampton, presumably because it hadn't been paid. Where Thomas Wayte Esquire comes in I'm not sure - I presume this is more likely to be the man who took out the original loan in 1423, but without seeing the document I couldn't be sure. So it's possible that it was a family debt our Thomas was being chased for, but not certain.

Sorry to chip in Marie. What is interesting is how after Wayte's death ES made payments and transfers to Hampton and his colleagues.
Had they been in debt and borrowed? Certainly there was a Thomas Wayte who was pursued for debt in Bristol about a year or so before he married her. Sounds like the same one, a cloth merchant? Or it could just be unscrupulous Hampton. H
Marie replies:The debt case - the only one I have shortly before the marriage is this one, but it relates to Winchester and Southampton, and doesn't say what goods the merchant traded in:

30 January 1466  Thomas Wayte, esquire, and merchant [of Hants] Creditor: John Veel, then Mayor of Winchester, and the community of the city. Amount: £100. Before whom: William Nicholl, Mayor of Southampton; John Fleming, Clerk. When taken: 01/02/1423 First term: 25/03/1423 Last term: 25/03/1423 Writ to: Sheriff of [Hants] Sent by: Gilbert Cornmonger, Mayor of Southampton. Endorsement: .... (cat ref. TNA C 241/191/9)

It's odd because it's an old debt, a record of a loan taken out in 1423, and sent into Chancery in 1466 by the then mayor of Southampton, presumably because it hadn't been paid. Where Thomas Wayte Esquire comes in I'm not sure - I presume this is more likely to be the man who took out the original loan in 1423, but without seeing the document I couldn't be sure. So it's possible that it was a family debt our Thomas was being chased for, but not certain.

Nico wrote:

"Thanks for the clarification, Marie. Edward did seem to like a particular type of woman, and it is likely that his reputation has been a bit exaggerated. This tends to reflect well on him, as he was probably seeking genuine companionship in his relationships. Elizabeth could fit in with that too, even if Edward avoided married women. Wayte's motivation in marrying Elizabeth doesn't appear entirely honest, so that may have undermined the marriage and they may have separated for some time. However, unlike Jane Shore, she wouldn't have qualified for an annulment and she left money to Wayte's daughter in her will, so they must have reconciled at some stage. Perhaps Arthur's birth could have encouraged that."

Marie replies:

There's certainly a pattern, isn't there? But it may not have been simply a matter of personal preference, or of wanting a proper relationship. Edward doesn't seem to have gone for young virgins either, from what we can tell. It may have been partly pragmatic: if you took a young maiden or a wife, then you would make an enemy of her father or husband. Also, and possibly more importantly for Edward, it was more sinful to deflower a virgin or entice a woman into adultery than it was to have an affair with a sexually experienced woman who was not otherwise spoken for.

Nico wrote:

"Thanks for the clarification, Marie. Edward did seem to like a particular type of woman, and it is likely that his reputation has been a bit exaggerated. This tends to reflect well on him, as he was probably seeking genuine companionship in his relationships. Elizabeth could fit in with that too, even if Edward avoided married women. Wayte's motivation in marrying Elizabeth doesn't appear entirely honest, so that may have undermined the marriage and they may have separated for some time. However, unlike Jane Shore, she wouldn't have qualified for an annulment and she left money to Wayte's daughter in her will, so they must have reconciled at some stage. Perhaps Arthur's birth could have encouraged that."

Marie replies:

There's certainly a pattern, isn't there? But it may not have been simply a matter of personal preference, or of wanting a proper relationship. Edward doesn't seem to have gone for young virgins either, from what we can tell. It may have been partly pragmatic: if you took a young maiden or a wife, then you would make an enemy of her father or husband. Also, and possibly more importantly for Edward, it was more sinful to deflower a virgin or entice a woman into adultery than it was to have an affair with a sexually experienced woman who was not otherwise spoken for.

Wayte and Hampton being related does make sense and from their ages I would guess that Hampton was an uncle who was helping his nephew make a fortuitous marriage. All very normal for the time, but even when everyone was seeking the best deal out of marriage, they still come across as a pair of chancers. As I mentioned in my comment to Doug, I can imagine them as the type of cads you find in Jane Austen novels.
Nico


On Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 18:33:03 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

"Thanks for the clarification, Marie. Edward did seem to like a particular type of woman, and it is likely that his reputation has been a bit exaggerated. This tends to reflect well on him, as he was probably seeking genuine companionship in his relationships. Elizabeth could fit in with that too, even if Edward avoided married women. Wayte's motivation in marrying Elizabeth doesn't appear entirely honest, so that may have undermined the marriage and they may have separated for some time. However, unlike Jane Shore, she wouldn't have qualified for an annulment and she left money to Wayte's daughter in her will, so they must have reconciled at some stage. Perhaps Arthur's birth could have encouraged that."

Marie replies:

There's certainly a pattern, isn't there? But it may not have been simply a matter of personal preference, or of wanting a proper relationship. Edward doesn't seem to have gone for young virgins either, from what we can tell. It may have been partly pragmatic: if you took a young maiden or a wife, then you would make an enemy of her father or husband. Also, and possibly more importantly for Edward, it was more sinful to deflower a virgin or entice a woman into adultery than it was to have an affair with a sexually experienced woman who was not otherwise spoken for.

Hi Nico,

I must admit I'm not really following the evidence for Wayte and Hampton having been a pair of chancers. The £100 debt sent up to Chancery in 1466 had been incurred by a previous Wayte over forty years earlier, on 1 February 1423, and we don't even know whether it landed at our Thomas' feet. The Thomas Wayte with the catch-all pardon with relation to his execution of a will was a citizen of London and almost certainly the London draper of that name.

The King's Widow case is not a divorce petition, as indicated in TNA catalogue. It is about people in trouble over a King's widow having remarried without royal licence. She is referred to as the King's Widow in Hampton's petition only because of the legal specifics of the case. Fining widows of tenants in chief for marrying without licence was normal, and no doubt a useful extra source of royal revenue. Because of her position as a King's Widow, had Elizabeth not wished to marry Wayte she could have gone straight to the King and complained about any pressure before the deed was done. The hasty remarriage therefore may well have come about either to avoid royal pressure to marry someone else instead (as with other cases we know of, such as Jacquetta of Bedford and Richard Woodville).

After the marriage she cooperated in enfeoffing her lands jointly with Thomas Wayte, with Hampton as a feoffee to some of them, and she retained him as a feoffee after Wayte's death. Looking at her will (6 October 1487), I see that she also left Thomas Wayte's bastard daughter Alice a generous bequest of household stuff towards her marriage: viz, a featherbed, a bolster, 10 pairs of sheets 3 pillows of down, a covering for a bed of green and red, a great pot and a little pot of brass, a great pan and a little pan of brass, 2 pewter basins, 3 latten candlesticks, 2 cushions of carpets (sic) and 2 cushions of flowers. If Alice should die before her marriage, then these goods were to be used to buy prayers for her soul.

Elizabeth's marriage to Thomas Wayte therefore seems to have been real enough, and her relationship with Thomas Hampton just fine (and remember, she exonerated him of blame for the marriage - the accusation was made by a third party).

Alice could well have been born before the marriage to Elizabeth, judging by the above, and have been old enough to have borne Edward a child. Perhaps he wouldn't have worried so much about deflowering a bastard. But I' not writing a novel and that level of speculation is not what you might call good historical method.

T. Hampton is more likely to have been a first cousin than an uncle, though you never know - he didn't inherit from his own father until 1472.

Hi Nico,

I must admit I'm not really following the evidence for Wayte and Hampton having been a pair of chancers. The £100 debt sent up to Chancery in 1466 had been incurred by a previous Wayte over forty years earlier, on 1 February 1423, and we don't even know whether it landed at our Thomas' feet. The Thomas Wayte with the catch-all pardon with relation to his execution of a will was a citizen of London and almost certainly the London draper of that name.

The King's Widow case is not a divorce petition, as indicated in TNA catalogue. It is about people in trouble over a King's widow having remarried without royal licence. She is referred to as the King's Widow in Hampton's petition only because of the legal specifics of the case. Fining widows of tenants in chief for marrying without licence was normal, and no doubt a useful extra source of royal revenue. Because of her position as a King's Widow, had Elizabeth not wished to marry Wayte she could have gone straight to the King and complained about any pressure before the deed was done. The hasty remarriage therefore may well have come about either to avoid royal pressure to marry someone else instead (as with other cases we know of, such as Jacquetta of Bedford and Richard Woodville).

After the marriage she cooperated in enfeoffing her lands jointly with Thomas Wayte, with Hampton as a feoffee to some of them, and she retained him as a feoffee after Wayte's death. Looking at her will (6 October 1487), I see that she also left Thomas Wayte's bastard daughter Alice a generous bequest of household stuff towards her marriage: viz, a featherbed, a bolster, 10 pairs of sheets 3 pillows of down, a covering for a bed of green and red, a great pot and a little pot of brass, a great pan and a little pan of brass, 2 pewter basins, 3 latten candlesticks, 2 cushions of carpets (sic) and 2 cushions of flowers. If Alice should die before her marriage, then these goods were to be used to buy prayers for her soul.

Elizabeth's marriage to Thomas Wayte therefore seems to have been real enough, and her relationship with Thomas Hampton just fine (and remember, she exonerated him of blame for the marriage - the accusation was made by a third party).

Alice could well have been born before the marriage to Elizabeth, judging by the above, and have been old enough to have borne Edward a child. Perhaps he wouldn't have worried so much about deflowering a bastard. But I' not writing a novel and that level of speculation is not what you might call good historical method.

T. Hampton is more likely to have been a first cousin than an uncle, though you never know - he didn't inherit from his own father until 1472.

Mainly financial gain - a tax dodge, if you like. If you didn't do it, then your heir couldn't enter the lands without paying a fee for the privilege. Added advantage in time of civil war was that the lands could escape confiscation if the real owner was attainted.

Also the feoffees could look after day-to-day running, and it made it easier to leave chunks of lands to other family members. You just instructed your feoffees in your will (or in the original feoffment) who they were to make estate to or hold the lands to the use of after your death.

Mainly financial gain - a tax dodge, if you like. If you didn't do it, then your heir couldn't enter the lands without paying a fee for the privilege. Added advantage in time of civil war was that the lands could escape confiscation if the real owner was attainted.

Also the feoffees could look after day-to-day running, and it made it easier to leave chunks of lands to other family members. You just instructed your feoffees in your will (or in the original feoffment) who they were to make estate to or hold the lands to the use of after your death.

Mainly financial gain - a tax dodge, if you like. If you didn't do it, then your heir couldn't enter the lands without paying a fee for the privilege. Added advantage in time of civil war was that the lands could escape confiscation if the real owner was attainted.

Also the feoffees could look after day-to-day running, and it made it easier to leave chunks of lands to other family members. You just instructed your feoffees in your will (or in the original feoffment) who they were to make estate to or hold the lands to the use of after your death.

Catherine Claringdon comes from Buck - whom JAH trusts implicitly. Edward III, I understand, had a mistress named Claringdon so there's probably been a confusion.

There is nothing whatsoever to link CC with Isabel Mylbery. She married well and was identified as a daughter of EIV by Peter Hammond simply by her heraldry. The Mylbery surname is obscure - there are none in published records - but I discovered in trawling through the King's Bench records that there were Mylberys in London and Westminster, including a notorious yeoman and thief named Thomas Mylbery who kept escaping the noose. I tracked him in those records between the early 1470s and late 1480s. He was accused of stealing a horse from Westminster Palace on one occasion, and on another of robbing a London church of all its valuables. I meant to write something about him for the Bulletin but have never got round to it.

Doug one of my wonderful cousins once told me, darling, there is nothing new under the sun, just new people doing the same old things!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

Soap opera? Sounds more as if it was one the many spoofs of soap operas!

OTOH, I would imagine that many such marriages often led to some disappointment on the part of the contracting parties. However, I'd also imagine that any such disappointment wouldn't likely have come as too much a surprise  undoubtedly having occurred to other couples known to those involved in this particular case.

Doug

Nicholas wrote:

The plot thickens! Actually, I hadn't considered anyone else, but there were those stories about Edward, Hastings and Dorset all having a bit of fun with Jane Shore the resulting rivalry between the latter, so if it happened once maybe there were others. I had the idea that ES married Wayte too quickly after Wynard died, then realized that Wayte and Hampton were after her money and regretting the marriage got together with Edward after meeting him as a King's widow. However, she was stuck with the marriage to Wayte, so she had to keep up with it, probably having sex with him every now and again, even if they weren't too fond of each other. That way it was possible that she wasn't sure about Arthur's paternity. Perhaps he had a mistress too and Alice was born during the marriage to ES (so too young to be Arthur's mother.) ES, Edward, Wayte and Hampton could be interesting characters for the historical romance novelist; add Hastings and Dorset to the mix and its a real soap opera!

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The King's Widow case is not a divorce petition, as indicated in TNA catalogue. It is about people in trouble over a King's widow having remarried without royal licence. She is referred to as the King's Widow in Hampton's petition only because of the legal specifics of the case. Fining widows of tenants in chief for marrying without licence was normal, and no doubt a useful extra source of royal revenue. Because of her position as a King's Widow, had Elizabeth not wished to marry Wayte she could have gone straight to the King and complained about any pressure before the deed was done. The hasty remarriage therefore may well have come about either to avoid royal pressure to marry someone else instead (as with other cases we know of, such as Jacquetta of Bedford and Richard Woodville).

After the marriage she cooperated in enfeoffing her lands jointly with Thomas Wayte, with Hampton as a feoffee to some of them, and she retained him as a feoffee after Wayte's death. Looking at her will (6 October 1487), I see that she also left Thomas Wayte's bastard daughter Alice a generous bequest of household stuff towards her marriage: viz, a featherbed, a bolster, 10 pairs of sheets 3 pillows of down, a covering for a bed of green and red, a great pot and a little pot of brass, a great pan and a little pan of brass, 2 pewter basins, 3 latten candlesticks, 2 cushions of carpets (sic) and 2 cushions of flowers. If Alice should die before her marriage, then these goods were to be used to buy prayers for her soul.

Elizabeth's marriage to Thomas Wayte therefore seems to have been real enough, and her relationship with Thomas Hampton just fine (and remember, she exonerated him of blame for the marriage - the accusation was made by a third party).

Alice could well have been born before the marriage to Elizabeth, judging by the above, and have been old enough to have borne Edward a child. Perhaps he wouldn't have worried so much about deflowering a bastard. But I' not writing a novel and that level of speculation is not what you might call good historical method.

T. Hampton is more likely to have been a first cousin than an uncle, though you never know - he didn't inherit from his own father until 1472.

Doug one of my wonderful cousins once told me, darling, there is nothing new under the sun, just new people doing the same old things!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

Soap opera? Sounds more as if it was one the many spoofs of soap operas!

OTOH, I would imagine that many such marriages often led to some disappointment on the part of the contracting parties. However, I'd also imagine that any such disappointment wouldn't likely have come as too much a surprise  undoubtedly having occurred to other couples known to those involved in this particular case.

Doug

Nicholas wrote:

The plot thickens! Actually, I hadn't considered anyone else, but there were those stories about Edward, Hastings and Dorset all having a bit of fun with Jane Shore the resulting rivalry between the latter, so if it happened once maybe there were others. I had the idea that ES married Wayte too quickly after Wynard died, then realized that Wayte and Hampton were after her money and regretting the marriage got together with Edward after meeting him as a King's widow. However, she was stuck with the marriage to Wayte, so she had to keep up with it, probably having sex with him every now and again, even if they weren't too fond of each other. That way it was possible that she wasn't sure about Arthur's paternity. Perhaps he had a mistress too and Alice was born during the marriage to ES (so too young to be Arthur's mother.) ES, Edward, Wayte and Hampton could be interesting characters for the historical romance novelist; add Hastings and Dorset to the mix and its a real soap opera!

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Or as we say in France « Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose »

Doug one of my wonderful cousins once told me, darling, there is nothing new under the sun, just new people doing the same old things!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Re: Re: Elizabeth Wayte and the 1483 rebellions

Soap opera? Sounds more as if it was one the many spoofs of soap operas!

OTOH, I would imagine that many such marriages often led to some disappointment on the part of the contracting parties. However, I'd also imagine that any such disappointment wouldn't likely have come as too much a surprise  undoubtedly having occurred to other couples known to those involved in this particular case.

Doug

Nicholas wrote:

The plot thickens! Actually, I hadn't considered anyone else, but there were those stories about Edward, Hastings and Dorset all having a bit of fun with Jane Shore the resulting rivalry between the latter, so if it happened once maybe there were others. I had the idea that ES married Wayte too quickly after Wynard died, then realized that Wayte and Hampton were after her money and regretting the marriage got together with Edward after meeting him as a King's widow. However, she was stuck with the marriage to Wayte, so she had to keep up with it, probably having sex with him every now and again, even if they weren't too fond of each other. That way it was possible that she wasn't sure about Arthur's paternity. Perhaps he had a mistress too and Alice was born during the marriage to ES (so too young to be Arthur's mother.) ES, Edward, Wayte and Hampton could be interesting characters for the historical romance novelist; add Hastings and Dorset to the mix and its a real soap opera!

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

No. 7. On the Morrow of the Purification. 8 E. IV.

Between Thomas Hampton, of Oldestoke, in the co. of Southampton, Armiger, and John Hampton, Armiger, and Anne his wife, deforciants of nine messuages, four cottages, forty acres of land, ten acres of meadow and forty acres of pasture in Wulvernehampton.

¶John and Anne remitted all right, and granted that the said tenements, which Bevis Hampton held for life, of the inheritance of the said John, may remain, after the death of Bevis, to Thomas and his heirs, for which Thomas granted the said tenements to John and Anne for their lives, at a rent of a rose yearly; and, after their decease, they shall revert to Thomas and his heirs for ever.

The King's Widow case is not a divorce petition, as indicated in TNA catalogue. It is about people in trouble over a King's widow having remarried without royal licence. She is referred to as the King's Widow in Hampton's petition only because of the legal specifics of the case. Fining widows of tenants in chief for marrying without licence was normal, and no doubt a useful extra source of royal revenue. Because of her position as a King's Widow, had Elizabeth not wished to marry Wayte she could have gone straight to the King and complained about any pressure before the deed was done. The hasty remarriage therefore may well have come about either to avoid royal pressure to marry someone else instead (as with other cases we know of, such as Jacquetta of Bedford and Richard Woodville).

After the marriage she cooperated in enfeoffing her lands jointly with Thomas Wayte, with Hampton as a feoffee to some of them, and she retained him as a feoffee after Wayte's death. Looking at her will (6 October 1487), I see that she also left Thomas Wayte's bastard daughter Alice a generous bequest of household stuff towards her marriage: viz, a featherbed, a bolster, 10 pairs of sheets 3 pillows of down, a covering for a bed of green and red, a great pot and a little pot of brass, a great pan and a little pan of brass, 2 pewter basins, 3 latten candlesticks, 2 cushions of carpets (sic) and 2 cushions of flowers. If Alice should die before her marriage, then these goods were to be used to buy prayers for her soul.

Elizabeth's marriage to Thomas Wayte therefore seems to have been real enough, and her relationship with Thomas Hampton just fine (and remember, she exonerated him of blame for the marriage - the accusation was made by a third party).

Alice could well have been born before the marriage to Elizabeth, judging by the above, and have been old enough to have borne Edward a child. Perhaps he wouldn't have worried so much about deflowering a bastard. But I' not writing a novel and that level of speculation is not what you might call good historical method.

T. Hampton is more likely to have been a first cousin than an uncle, though you never know - he didn't inherit from his own father until 1472.and

Marie/Doug, firstly I've gone back to the drawing board with the Hamptons and Waytes and my it's hard and tedious work.
With the Waytes, the real culprit seems to be the VCH, which has different versions for different manors of whom Margaret Popham married - one has a John, another Edward (which is the Edward I took). I think this is where JAH got his info from too, because he chose John. Both versions I recall (and I'll check because JAH had this too) have their son Thomas dying in 1449 unmarried. Now as the Pophams were lawyers the unmarried Thomas who left a will in 1449 and was a lawyer from the Temple makes sense. About this time there's a deed by Edward giving another Thomas (probably his nephew?) Maningford Bohun, but we know that his daughter Elizabeth's Roger's heirs eventually inherited it after the deaths of his sons William and Robert. So the search for 'our' Thomas who married ES goes on. I really could do with a nice IPM or two.
Re Thomas Hampton, I agree Marie, I think he was a cousin. His father was John Hampton, MP, for Stoke Charity and grandson of Sir Thomas Hampton, Governor of the Channel Islands - also from Stoke Charity. The John Hampton of Kinver and Stourton (Staffs) who left him the legacy in 1472 was a favourite of Henry VI and became Master of the Horse to MOA. He died without children and he had a brother Bevis, who also died without children.
The following deed is interesting

No. 7. On the Morrow of the Purification. 8 E. IV.

Between Thomas Hampton, of Oldestoke, in the co. of Southampton, Armiger, and John Hampton, Armiger, and Anne his wife, deforciants of nine messuages, four cottages, forty acres of land, ten acres of meadow and forty acres of pasture in Wulvernehampton.

¶John and Anne remitted all right, and granted that the said tenements, which Bevis Hampton held for life, of the inheritance of the said John, may remain, after the death of Bevis, to Thomas and his heirs, for which Thomas granted the said tenements to John and Anne for their lives, at a rent of a rose yearly; and, after their decease, they shall revert to Thomas and his heirs for ever.

The King's Widow case is not a divorce petition, as indicated in TNA catalogue. It is about people in trouble over a King's widow having remarried without royal licence. She is referred to as the King's Widow in Hampton's petition only because of the legal specifics of the case. Fining widows of tenants in chief for marrying without licence was normal, and no doubt a useful extra source of royal revenue. Because of her position as a King's Widow, had Elizabeth not wished to marry Wayte she could have gone straight to the King and complained about any pressure before the deed was done. The hasty remarriage therefore may well have come about either to avoid royal pressure to marry someone else instead (as with other cases we know of, such as Jacquetta of Bedford and Richard Woodville).

After the marriage she cooperated in enfeoffing her lands jointly with Thomas Wayte, with Hampton as a feoffee to some of them, and she retained him as a feoffee after Wayte's death. Looking at her will (6 October 1487), I see that she also left Thomas Wayte's bastard daughter Alice a generous bequest of household stuff towards her marriage: viz, a featherbed, a bolster, 10 pairs of sheets 3 pillows of down, a covering for a bed of green and red, a great pot and a little pot of brass, a great pan and a little pan of brass, 2 pewter basins, 3 latten candlesticks, 2 cushions of carpets (sic) and 2 cushions of flowers. If Alice should die before her marriage, then these goods were to be used to buy prayers for her soul.

Elizabeth's marriage to Thomas Wayte therefore seems to have been real enough, and her relationship with Thomas Hampton just fine (and remember, she exonerated him of blame for the marriage - the accusation was made by a third party).

Alice could well have been born before the marriage to Elizabeth, judging by the above, and have been old enough to have borne Edward a child. Perhaps he wouldn't have worried so much about deflowering a bastard. But I' not writing a novel and that level of speculation is not what you might call good historical method.

T. Hampton is more likely to have been a first cousin than an uncle, though you never know - he didn't inherit from his own father until 1472.and

Catherine Claringdon comes from Buck - whom JAH trusts implicitly. Edward III, I understand, had a mistress named Claringdon so there's probably been a confusion.

There is nothing whatsoever to link CC with Isabel Mylbery. She married well and was identified as a daughter of EIV by Peter Hammond simply by her heraldry. The Mylbery surname is obscure - there are none in published records - but I discovered in trawling through the King's Bench records that there were Mylberys in London and Westminster, including a notorious yeoman and thief named Thomas Mylbery who kept escaping the noose. I tracked him in those records between the early 1470s and late 1480s. He was accused of stealing a horse from Westminster Palace on one occasion, and on another of robbing a London church of all its valuables. I meant to write something about him for the Bulletin but have never got round to it.

Mainly financial gain - a tax dodge, if you like. If you didn't do it, then your heir couldn't enter the lands without paying a fee for the privilege. Added advantage in time of civil war was that the lands could escape confiscation if the real owner was attainted.

Also the feoffees could look after day-to-day running, and it made it easier to leave chunks of lands to other family members. You just instructed your feoffees in your will (or in the original feoffment) who they were to make estate to or hold the lands to the use of after your death.

Hi Doug re posting what I posted earlier.

On Monday, November 13, 2017, 4:49 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Am I right in thinking that if there are connections to East Harptree there are connections to the Craddock Newtons?

Marie wrote:
"Don't know if anyone protested about the marriage - it probably simply
came to the king's attention. At that point a kind friend of Elizabeth's ,
ID unknown, said it wasn't her fault, Thomas Hampton had pushed her into it.
Hampton is arrested and held in the Fleet. Elizabeth is brought before the
council and says no, it wasn't actually Hampton's fault."

Doug here:
That was the only thing that really bothered me - how did it come to be
noticed. Personally, I suspected someone in the "office" of whichever
lawyers were consulted prior to the marriage, which I presume would have
been the norm. Possibly someone acting in hopes of a reward of some sort.
Anyway, thank you very much for all the digging and data you've turned up!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

it just struck me that an awful lot of things happened in 1468. John Wynard died, Thomas got put in the Fleet but also managed to persuade John Hampton to make him his heir. All this whilst Eleanor was dying, Courtenay and Hungerford were plotting and Warwick and George were getting cosy. Oh and Edward was ruling in favour of Joan Swete.
Re your question Doug, from the tone of Hampton's Fleet letter he seems to blame Elizabeth. He doesn't come across as liking her. These were families of lawyers - Pophams, Skillings, Wydeslades. Perhaps daughter Agnes, now married to Wydeslade, felt that her inheritance could be threatened by a remarriage of her mother? H

On Monday, 13 November 2017, 16:35:57 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote:
"Don't know if anyone protested about the marriage - it probably simply
came to the king's attention. At that point a kind friend of Elizabeth's ,
ID unknown, said it wasn't her fault, Thomas Hampton had pushed her into it.
Hampton is arrested and held in the Fleet. Elizabeth is brought before the
council and says no, it wasn't actually Hampton's fault."

Doug here:
That was the only thing that really bothered me - how did it come to be
noticed. Personally, I suspected someone in the "office" of whichever
lawyers were consulted prior to the marriage, which I presume would have
been the norm. Possibly someone acting in hopes of a reward of some sort.
Anyway, thank you very much for all the digging and data you've turned up!
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug, and Mary. The Staffordshire and Wiltshire Hamptons are related going right back to Phillip in 1182 and we have quite a lot of the early IPMs. Their main heiress married into the Pole family in the 13th century and is the ancestor of Sir Richard Pole who married Margaret (Clarence). That too is confirmed in deeds.
There are indeed other Hamptons which I can't relate - some in Warwickshire. The Stillington Hamptons gravitated towards Devon and Somerset through marriage to Elizabeth Bytton and Alice Catecote (who brought them East Harptree). Regarding our Thomas, there is a document of 1433 which talks about his grandmother Margaret's dower lands in Staffordshire.
The ones not to muddle are the Hampdens of Buckinghamshire (the ancestors of the famous Parliamentarian John). They have always spelled their names differently (except in the odd document) and I can't link them, even though they are from a nearby area to Oxon - Bucks. Incidentally, before the 13th century the name was spelled "de Hanton", not Hampton. They are also closely linked through ancestry to the Gainsfords. Hope this helps a bit. H

On Tuesday, 14 November 2017, 15:43:54 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

More and more incestuous!! If I remember rightly aren't the Byttons connected to the Glamorgan coast families in some way?

More and more incestuous!! If I remember rightly aren't the Byttons connected to the Glamorgan coast families in some way?

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

It is such a shame that Edward allowed so much resentment to fester. Foresight and emotional intelligence never seems to have been his finest qualities, and he would probably have faced another rebellion if he had lived longer. I'm not sure whether it was it was arrogance, naivety or both, and while giving the Woodvilles some rewards would be understandable, they were given far too much power. Why did this family have such a hold on him? Unfortunately, Richard inherited the whole mess, and the rebellion that had been on the cards for years. The traditional line has been that everyone had to rebel because Richard was so dreadful and had murdered the Princes certainly needs to be examined in more depth.
Nico
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 13:37:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

It is such a shame that Edward allowed so much resentment to fester. Foresight and emotional intelligence never seems to have been his finest qualities, and he would probably have faced another rebellion if he had lived longer. I'm not sure whether it was it was arrogance, naivety or both, and while giving the Woodvilles some rewards would be understandable, they were given far too much power. Why did this family have such a hold on him? Unfortunately, Richard inherited the whole mess, and the rebellion that had been on the cards for years. The traditional line has been that everyone had to rebel because Richard was so dreadful and had murdered the Princes certainly needs to be examined in more depth.
Nico
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 13:37:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

Yes Nico, with you in all of this. Richard was shaping up in his far too brief reign to be a much better king than his brother. Edward was clearly a lazy man who enjoyed the benefits of kingship without wanting to put in the graft, and being able to leave half the country in his brothers capable hands left him with more free time to enjoy himself. Unlike Richard he let his nobles carry on unhindered as long as they stayed loyal to the crown. Vested interests were left alone. With Richard they came under attack as he was more interested in the welfare of all his subjects.

It is such a shame that Edward allowed so much resentment to fester. Foresight and emotional intelligence never seems to have been his finest qualities, and he would probably have faced another rebellion if he had lived longer. I'm not sure whether it was it was arrogance, naivety or both, and while giving the Woodvilles some rewards would be understandable, they were given far too much power. Why did this family have such a hold on him? Unfortunately, Richard inherited the whole mess, and the rebellion that had been on the cards for years. The traditional line has been that everyone had to rebel because Richard was so dreadful and had murdered the Princes certainly needs to be examined in more depth.
Nico
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 13:37:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

I have always found the relationship between Edward and the Woodvilles astounding, and I agree that blackmail is a very strong possibility. Edward, especially in the early stages may have been genuinely charmed by Elizabeth's family, perhaps even seeing them as able to provide some emotional need that his own family couldn't meet, but this would have worn off in time. Some writers have suggested that he promoted the Woodvilles to counteract over powerful members of the nobility, but surely he could see before long that it wasn't working., so something was stopping him doing the sensible thing which would be to clip their wings and lower their profile, especially after the turmoil of 1469-71. Actually, if the Woodvilles had been more modest in what favours they accepted, they would have saved themselves and the country a lot of trouble, but clearly they were as shortsighted as Edward and greed got the better of them

So why did the Woodvilles manage to snap up so much land, wealth, the most lucrative marriages and most of all, the guardianship of the future Edward V? That boy was raised as a Woodville, not a Plantagenet, with Anthony Woodville as a surrogate father. Edward should never have allowed that. If the Woodvilles had something on Edward, I think it was most likely Eleanor Talbot. Also, if J-AH is right about Henry Beaufort, then bisexuality may have been a secret Edward would have liked to have kept in closed circles. The latter was potentially damaging (cf Edward II), but the precontract would have destroyed everything (including the Woodvilles).
It really irritates me when the Woodvilles are romanticized as innocent victims of Richard's ambition. Nothing could have been further from the truth.


On Friday, 17 November 2017, 09:25:57 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Nico, with you in all of this. Richard was shaping up in his far too brief reign to be a much better king than his brother. Edward was clearly a lazy man who enjoyed the benefits of kingship without wanting to put in the graft, and being able to leave half the country in his brothers capable hands left him with more free time to enjoy himself. Unlike Richard he let his nobles carry on unhindered as long as they stayed loyal to the crown. Vested interests were left alone. With Richard they came under attack as he was more interested in the welfare of all his subjects.

It is such a shame that Edward allowed so much resentment to fester. Foresight and emotional intelligence never seems to have been his finest qualities, and he would probably have faced another rebellion if he had lived longer. I'm not sure whether it was it was arrogance, naivety or both, and while giving the Woodvilles some rewards would be understandable, they were given far too much power. Why did this family have such a hold on him? Unfortunately, Richard inherited the whole mess, and the rebellion that had been on the cards for years. The traditional line has been that everyone had to rebel because Richard was so dreadful and had murdered the Princes certainly needs to be examined in more depth.
Nico
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 13:37:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

Hilary, you are right about Henry VI. His contribution to education has been forgotten. He may had a mental health problems, but he wasn't - as Dan Jones suggested - feeble minded if he was founding schools and universities. He was an anointed King too, and Edward was a fool for treating supporters they way he did.
Nico

On Friday, 17 November 2017, 11:08:01 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I have always found the relationship between Edward and the Woodvilles astounding, and I agree that blackmail is a very strong possibility. Edward, especially in the early stages may have been genuinely charmed by Elizabeth's family, perhaps even seeing them as able to provide some emotional need that his own family couldn't meet, but this would have worn off in time. Some writers have suggested that he promoted the Woodvilles to counteract over powerful members of the nobility, but surely he could see before long that it wasn't working., so something was stopping him doing the sensible thing which would be to clip their wings and lower their profile, especially after the turmoil of 1469-71. Actually, if the Woodvilles had been more modest in what favours they accepted, they would have saved themselves and the country a lot of trouble, but clearly they were as shortsighted as Edward and greed got the better of them

So why did the Woodvilles manage to snap up so much land, wealth, the most lucrative marriages and most of all, the guardianship of the future Edward V? That boy was raised as a Woodville, not a Plantagenet, with Anthony Woodville as a surrogate father. Edward should never have allowed that. If the Woodvilles had something on Edward, I think it was most likely Eleanor Talbot. Also, if J-AH is right about Henry Beaufort, then bisexuality may have been a secret Edward would have liked to have kept in closed circles. The latter was potentially damaging (cf Edward II), but the precontract would have destroyed everything (including the Woodvilles).
It really irritates me when the Woodvilles are romanticized as innocent victims of Richard's ambition. Nothing could have been further from the truth.


On Friday, 17 November 2017, 09:25:57 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Nico, with you in all of this. Richard was shaping up in his far too brief reign to be a much better king than his brother. Edward was clearly a lazy man who enjoyed the benefits of kingship without wanting to put in the graft, and being able to leave half the country in his brothers capable hands left him with more free time to enjoy himself. Unlike Richard he let his nobles carry on unhindered as long as they stayed loyal to the crown. Vested interests were left alone. With Richard they came under attack as he was more interested in the welfare of all his subjects.

It is such a shame that Edward allowed so much resentment to fester. Foresight and emotional intelligence never seems to have been his finest qualities, and he would probably have faced another rebellion if he had lived longer. I'm not sure whether it was it was arrogance, naivety or both, and while giving the Woodvilles some rewards would be understandable, they were given far too much power. Why did this family have such a hold on him? Unfortunately, Richard inherited the whole mess, and the rebellion that had been on the cards for years. The traditional line has been that everyone had to rebel because Richard was so dreadful and had murdered the Princes certainly needs to be examined in more depth.
Nico
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 13:37:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And I really don't think it helped Gege to say the least; they played to all his weaknesses. The irony is the decent man would probably have given them what they wanted down the line. He was the one after all who set out to go round the country to meet his folk. H
(sorry George Yahoo is having bad day and wont let me insert)
On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, 12:04:21 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It does make you feel angry that all these self seeking adventurers destroyed a decent man who believed in justice for all. Yes Richard was definitely not a saint and he could be harsh when the situation called for it but overall he was a decent man operating in a nest of vipers, as Eileen would say.

Absolutely agree Nico. It has always amazed me that Edward allowed his heir to be brought up by the Woodvilles. While we will never know if Richard Collins book about Edward's death is the truth of what happened in 1483, I think that when he says that Edward, who had been the goose who laid the golden eggs for the Woodvilles, was no longer laying golden eggs, he is probably correct. I just wish that there was some evidence out there that would help us to understand what happened.

Marie wrote:

"Unfortunately, as I have discovered in browsing through the Foedera, on 1 August Lord Strange was at Nottingham, where he witnessed Thomas Barowe's arrival with the Great Seal, and Richard's entrustment of the Seal into Barowe's keeping.
This does show that Stanley had come to court by the beginning of August, but it also seems to show that he was not at that time being held as a prisoner. I guess we shall never know for sure what happened. The story of his near-execution took deep roots and there may be some truth in it, but it did have the distinct advantage for Strange of excusing his presence in Richard's camp, and it is a bit hard to credit that Richard would have given orders for his execution only for these to be ignored. I find it intriguing but I don't really know what to think."

Carol responds:

I guess I was confused by the reference to Lord Strange as Stanley and thought you meant his father.

Marie responds:

I did mean his father in my original post (though I did also accidentally call Lord Strange Stanley in my reply above). I was responding to David's post: "Regarding Thomas, I have seen references to extant documents that Thomas was signing at Lathom very shortly before Bosworth. They sound like enfeoffments, so Thomas genuinely had urgent business to transact in Lancashire."

Actually, the Lathom document was supposedly dated about 3 weeks after the Bewsey one. The source is a 19thC book by the Lancashire antiquarian James Croston, but nobody has been able to find the document to which he refers (which he says was witnessed by the same people who witnessed the Bewsey deed of 18 July), even though he names the collection in which it supposedly resides. Given that he didn't give eithr an exact date for the deed or an exact document reference, it seems likely that Crostan was working from memory, and that said memory was playing tricks on him. Given Strange's presence in Nottingham on 1 August, it is hard to believe he could have been back at Lathom on c. 9 August.

Sorry just to have joined in this. Hope your cold's better Doug!
Re the Woodvilles, I actually go along with Horsepool in believing that Edward never intended to reveal his marriage; but he probably met his match in Jacquetta. Once there, the Woodvilles with their rather shallow charisma provided a balance with the real (and dangerous) charisma of Warwick and his own mother. Warwick was every bit at match for Edward, he had been a supreme naval commander too and could match Anthony Woodville for learning any day, let alone getting along with Louis XI. Edward couldn't brook rivals and the Woodvilles only challenged him by stealth. After 1471 I reckon he thought he was secure and couldn't really be bothered with family bickerings. After all, EW in medieval terms, was a good wife; she'd provided a whole brood of children, she'd never been unfaithful and brought scandal. As for the guardianship of the boy, as you say, who else was around to do it? And Edward had had a pretty rough time with his own tutor (Croft) so it was inevitable he'd choose someone he knew.
Perhaps if Clarence had been around?? I like your idea of him as a constitutional monarch, Doug - an affable Edward VII. The predicted disasters often turn out like that. H
On Sunday, 19 November 2017, 20:21:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,
Thank you for responding so completely!
If I understand your first point correctly, then it seems likely Lord
Stanley planned from the first to betray Richard, and possibly his son Lord
Lestrange was also in on it. It also seems likely that if both Lord Stanley
and Sir William were at Bosworth, it was definitely Lord Stanley who was in
charge of the Stanley contingent.
I think your reasoning about it being Lord Stanley who came to Tudor's
rescue; the earldom for Lord Stanley and Sir William's execution on rather
flimsy grounds, fits very well with what we know did happen during and after
Bosworth. I hadn't considered the possibility that Sir William, while
present, may not have displayed enough support(?) for his nephew-in-law,
with later fatal results. And it does seem strange, to say the least, that,
if it had been Sir William and not his brother who'd been so instrumental in
the victory, it wasn't Sir William who was rewarded.
A thought: perhaps Sir William was a crypto-Yorkist all along? Just not
particularly fond of Richard?
Anyway, thank you again,
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi Doug. Here goes:
1) I think it's quite likely that Strange was sent south as part of the
Stanley strategy, to act as the loyal Stanley and so prevent the family
lands being confiscated in the event that the father's treason failed and he
lost his head. But we'll probably never know. The facts we have equally well
fit Crowland's account, according to which, a little while before the Tudor
landing "Thomas Stanley, Steward of the King's Household, received
permission to go across to Lancashire, his native country, to see his home
and family from whom he had been long away. He was not allowed to make any
long stay there unless he sent his first-born son George, Lord Lestrange, to
the King at Nottingham, which he did." He does not suggest that Strange was
held prisoner until later on, viz after Richard, growing suspicious on
account of the movements of Tudor's army within Wales, ordered Lord Stanley
back to court, and Strange responded to this development by attempting to
sneak away from Nottingham to join his father. According to this scenario,
Thomas Stanley and his son may have met at Bewsey (the seat of the Botelers
of the deed) on 18 July as Thomas was travelling northwards to Lathom, and
his son southwards to Nottingham. At the time of the delivery of the Great
Seal on 1 August Strange was at court and still in Richard's good books.
The story of Strange's foiled execution is picked up by Hall, and also
appears in Lady Bessy. The problem is that we don't have a version of Lady
B. earlier than the late 16th century so we can't be sure that it was part
of the original Stanley account.
2) Which Stanley fought at Bosworth? On further reading, I've become pretty
much convinced that Mike Jones' theory that it was Sir William who rode to
Tudor's rescue at Bosworth, and that Lord Stanley was absent, is incorrect.
These are my reasons:
a) The document that says Lord Stanley first met HT on 24 August 1485
probably just misdated the battle, because it gives the same date for all
the other Tudor supporters involved in the case (they were witnesses for HT
to the tribunal which granted his marriage dispensation).
b) Lord Stanley was the one rewarded after Bosworth. Sir William got
nothing.
c) The grants to Stanley say they are rewards for his participation at
Bosworth. The first was "in consideration of the good and praiseworthy
services performed by him before now with great personal exertions and
costs, in many ways and on divers occasions, and now lately in the king's
conflict within the realm of England..... The second - the earldom of
Derby - was "considering likewise his most outstanding allegiance to us and
his greatest assistance in arms [given] to us in the battle lately waged, as
well by himself as by all his kinsmen, not without the greatest risk to both
his life and his estate....
d) Sir William was eventually executed by Tudor on what might be considered
a fairly flimsy charge, which is not exactly suggestive of his having been
the king's saviour.
e) De Valera, writing at the beginning of 1486, names the person who changed
sides and led his mean against Richard as 'Milort Tamorlant', seemingly a
hybrid of Lord Stanley and Northumberland. The first narrative to mention
the Stanleys by name is, I think, Commines, and he credits Lord Stanley. The
Great Chronicle has Stanley at the battle with his sons, and Sir William
placing the crown on Henry's head afterwards. The first person to credit Sir
William Stanley with Henry's rescue is Polydore Vergil, who has Lord Stanley
crowning Henry afterwards - Vergil may simply have got this the wrong way
round
The scenario you often see, in which the two Stanley brothers lead wholly
separate contingents, doesn't seem to have any basis in the historical
accounts. The grant of the earldom of Derby credits Lord Stanley with
leading his entire kinship group. Crowland lumps the two brothers together
in the battle as "Lord Stanley and his brother William". Perhaps William
held his men back, and then attempted to ingratiate himself with Tudor
afterwards by popping the crown on his head.
The strongest evidence of Lord Stanley's pivotal role at Bosworth, for me,
is the wording of his grant of the earldom of Derby, and the strongest
evidence of Sir William's relative inaction is his total lack of reward.
Henry rewarded some very obscure men after the battle so it does seem odd."

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul wrote:

William executed on flimsy grounds? Oh dear Doug. He said after a couple of years under Henry Tudor that he wished he hadn't intervened in Henry's behalf, or similar sentiments, which of course was treason, and with Tudor so insecure and paranoid, knowing he had no right to the throne, William was asking for it!

Marie butting in (as being the culprit who converted Doug to this heresy):

Did Sir William really say that? I don't think I've ever read that. I know he said he would not fight against Perkin Warbeck if he really was Richard Duke of York. Can you give me a source?

Incidentally, I have the transcript of Sir W. S.'s trial, so can post a translation of the charges if anyone would like.

Marie wrote:

Marie butting in (as being the culprit who converted Doug to this heresy):

Did Sir William really say that? I don't think I've ever read that. I know he said he would not fight against Perkin Warbeck if he really was Richard Duke of York. Can you give me a source?

Incidentally, I have the transcript of Sir W. S.'s trial, so can post a translation of the charges if anyone would like.

Marie:

Could have been a simple mistake. The bottom line is, though, he still has both brothers at the battle. All sources are agreed that Lord Stanley was present, and it is he - Tudor's stepfather - not Sir William, who had the compelling motive to switch sides.

I'm quite sure Lord Stanley must have been considering helping Tudor for a long time, even if not positively decided, because he would surely have to sound out other family members and the main leaders of the local s who were to fight under him otherwise any attempt to join in on Tudor's side could end in fiasco or mutiny (he could promise them great things if he became the King's "father"). In that context, the presence of Lord Stanley and his son at Bewsey Hall with the Botelers and Sir Piers Warburton (of Arley, about 5 miles to the south) takes on a rather more interesting aspect.

Therefore, like Richard, I'm quite sure Lord Strange knew what was going on, whatever his opinion about it, and the point of deferring judgement on him till after the battle would perhaps have been that they could only be 100% sure that his motives in slinking away to his father were treasonable once said father had actually come in on Tudor's side.

Herewith the translation of Sir William's indictment. I'm sorry it's a bit clunky, but I think it does the job and I'm afraid I don't have the time to polish it up:-

" . . . on the fourteenth of March in the eighth year of the reign of the said present king [Henry VII], William Stanley, late of the vill of Westminster in the foresaid county [of Middlesex], knight, otherwise called William Stanley late of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields beside Charyng Crosse in the same county, knight, and Robert Clyfford, knight, communicated and spoke together in the foresaid parish of St. Martin concerning a certain Peter Warbek (a native of Tournai [which is] under the obedience of the Archduke of Austria and Burgundy, and an enemy of the present lord king falsely pronouncing himself to be Richard, second son of the late King Edward the Fourth of England, [then] being in foreign parts overseas).

And then and there they falsely and treasonably conspired, imagined and encompassed the death and destruction of the same present lord king and the subversion of his realm of England, and, by raising and making war against the same king in his realm of England, to depose the same lord king and deprive him of his crown and royalty.

And, in order to implement and carry out their false and treasonable proposal, the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably confederated, concorded and agreed between them that the same Robert should cross over to the foresaid foreign parts to the present king's enemy Peter Warbek, and in the same Peter's service await the levying of war against the lord king in his realm of England; and that he should lead the same Peter into the kingdom of England with all his might and install him as king of England, and destroy the present lord king and depose him from his crown and royal dignity.

And furthermore, the said William Stanley then and there falsely promised and granted to the foregoing Robert Clyfford that, whenever and as often as the same Robert Clyfford should send anyone from those foreign parts to the same William Stanley, by a certain privy sign had between them, for the aid and assistance of him and the said Peter Warbek, enemies of the said lord king, the same William Stanley would aid and comfort them them to the best of his power; and he then and there falsely and treasonably promised to take the same Peter's part in raising war against the same lord king.

By virtue of which communication, conspiracy, imagination, promise, concord, agreement and comfort, the said Robert Clyfford afterwards (viz. on the fourteenth of June in the eighth year of the reign of the said lord king), in order to perform and carry out all and singular the premises against the said lord king, at the foresaid parish of St. Martin in the foresaid county falsely and treasonably set out on his journey towards the foresaid foreign parts to the foregoing Peter Warbek, and remained there in the same Peter Warbek's service in order to make war upon the said lord king.

And so the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably adhered to, comforted, aided and assisted the foresaid Peter Warbek, enemy of the said king, against their due allegiance. "

Marie,

Thank you for the translation. It does seem as if no noun, adjective or verb was left unused, doesn't it? Most interesting, to me anyway, is that, if the charges are anywhere near being accurate, Sir William wasn't executed for something he might not do in the future (fight for HT), but for what he and quite a few others were actually doing  conspiring to replace Tudor with Warbeck.

Which makes me wonder just where, and why, the widely-known, and repeated, story about Sir William being executed for something he hadn't yet done originated? It could certainly just be anti-Tudor propaganda emphasizing HT's paranoia, but I wonder. If, as you suggested, Sir William' presence at Bosworth was simply a mistake of Vergil's, then the charges listed below make a lot more sense. What do you think of the idea that the story about Sir William not fighting against Richard of Shrewsbury mightn't actually have referred to Sir William refusing to fight against Richard III at Bosworth? If one looks at Sir William's previous support of the House of York, his saying he wouldn't fight at Bosworth against Richard, meaning King Richard III, makes as much sense as believing he was executed a decade later because he said he wouldn't fight against Warbeck if that young man was Richard of Shrewsbury.

We do know that HT had a long memory and perhaps Sir William's actions, or better non-actions, at Bosworth was why Sir William wasn't spared? Oh well...

Anyway, thank you again for the translation,

Doug

Marie wrote:

Could have been a simple mistake. The bottom line is, though, he still has both brothers at the battle. All sources are agreed that Lord Stanley was present, and it is he - Tudor's stepfather - not Sir William, who had the compelling motive to switch sides.

I'm quite sure Lord Stanley must have been considering helping Tudor for a long time, even if not positively decided, because he would surely have to sound out other family members and the main leaders of the local s who were to fight under him otherwise any attempt to join in on Tudor's side could end in fiasco or mutiny (he could promise them great things if he became the King's "father"). In that context, the presence of Lord Stanley and his son at Bewsey Hall with the Botelers and Sir Piers Warburton (of Arley, about 5 miles to the south) takes on a rather more interesting aspect.

Therefore, like Richard, I'm quite sure Lord Strange knew what was going on, whatever his opinion about it, and the point of deferring judgement on him till after the battle would perhaps have been that they could only be 100% sure that his motives in slinking away to his father were treasonable once said father had actually come in on Tudor's side.

Herewith the translation of Sir William's indictment. I'm sorry it's a bit clunky, but I think it does the job and I'm afraid I don't have the time to polish it up:-

" . . . on the fourteenth of March in the eighth year of the reign of the said present king [Henry VII], William Stanley, late of the vill of Westminster in the foresaid county [of Middlesex], knight, otherwise called William Stanley late of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields beside Charyng Crosse in the same county, knight, and Robert Clyfford, knight, communicated and spoke together in the foresaid parish of St. Martin concerning a certain Peter Warbek (a native of Tournai [which is] under the obedience of the Archduke of Austria and Burgundy, and an enemy of the present lord king falsely pronouncing himself to be Richard, second son of the late King Edward the Fourth of England, [then] being in foreign parts overseas).

And then and there they falsely and treasonably conspired, imagined and encompassed the death and destruction of the same present lord king and the subversion of his realm of England, and, by raising and making war against the same king in his realm of England, to depose the same lord king and deprive him of his crown and royalty.

And, in order to implement and carry out their false and treasonable proposal, the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably confederated, concorded and agreed between them that the same Robert should cross over to the foresaid foreign parts to the present king's enemy Peter Warbek, and in the same Peter's service await the levying of war against the lord king in his realm of England; and that he should lead the same Peter into the kingdom of England with all his might and install him as king of England, and destroy the present lord king and depose him from his crown and royal dignity.

And furthermore, the said William Stanley then and there falsely promised and granted to the foregoing Robert Clyfford that, whenever and as often as the same Robert Clyfford should send anyone from those foreign parts to the same William Stanley, by a certain privy sign had between them, for the aid and assistance of him and the said Peter Warbek, enemies of the said lord king, the same William Stanley would aid and comfort them them to the best of his power; and he then and there falsely and treasonably promised to take the same Peter's part in raising war against the same lord king.

By virtue of which communication, conspiracy, imagination, promise, concord, agreement and comfort, the said Robert Clyfford afterwards (viz. on the fourteenth of June in the eighth year of the reign of the said lord king), in order to perform and carry out all and singular the premises against the said lord king, at the foresaid parish of St. Martin in the foresaid county falsely and treasonably set out on his journey towards the foresaid foreign parts to the foregoing Peter Warbek, and remained there in the same Peter Warbek's service in order to make war upon the said lord king.

And so the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably adhered to, comforted, aided and assisted the foresaid Peter Warbek, enemy of the said king, against their due allegiance. "

Marie,

Thank you for the translation. It does seem as if no noun, adjective or verb was left unused, doesn't it? Most interesting, to me anyway, is that, if the charges are anywhere near being accurate, Sir William wasn't executed for something he might not do in the future (fight for HT), but for what he and quite a few others were actually doing  conspiring to replace Tudor with Warbeck.

Which makes me wonder just where, and why, the widely-known, and repeated, story about Sir William being executed for something he hadn't yet done originated? It could certainly just be anti-Tudor propaganda emphasizing HT's paranoia, but I wonder. If, as you suggested, Sir William' presence at Bosworth was simply a mistake of Vergil's, then the charges listed below make a lot more sense. What do you think of the idea that the story about Sir William not fighting against Richard of Shrewsbury mightn't actually have referred to Sir William refusing to fight against Richard III at Bosworth? If one looks at Sir William's previous support of the House of York, his saying he wouldn't fight at Bosworth against Richard, meaning King Richard III, makes as much sense as believing he was executed a decade later because he said he wouldn't fight against Warbeck if that young man was Richard of Shrewsbury.

We do know that HT had a long memory and perhaps Sir William's actions, or better non-actions, at Bosworth was why Sir William wasn't spared? Oh well...

Anyway, thank you again for the translation,

Doug

Marie wrote:

Could have been a simple mistake. The bottom line is, though, he still has both brothers at the battle. All sources are agreed that Lord Stanley was present, and it is he - Tudor's stepfather - not Sir William, who had the compelling motive to switch sides.

I'm quite sure Lord Stanley must have been considering helping Tudor for a long time, even if not positively decided, because he would surely have to sound out other family members and the main leaders of the local s who were to fight under him otherwise any attempt to join in on Tudor's side could end in fiasco or mutiny (he could promise them great things if he became the King's "father"). In that context, the presence of Lord Stanley and his son at Bewsey Hall with the Botelers and Sir Piers Warburton (of Arley, about 5 miles to the south) takes on a rather more interesting aspect.

Therefore, like Richard, I'm quite sure Lord Strange knew what was going on, whatever his opinion about it, and the point of deferring judgement on him till after the battle would perhaps have been that they could only be 100% sure that his motives in slinking away to his father were treasonable once said father had actually come in on Tudor's side.

Herewith the translation of Sir William's indictment. I'm sorry it's a bit clunky, but I think it does the job and I'm afraid I don't have the time to polish it up:-

" . . . on the fourteenth of March in the eighth year of the reign of the said present king [Henry VII], William Stanley, late of the vill of Westminster in the foresaid county [of Middlesex], knight, otherwise called William Stanley late of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields beside Charyng Crosse in the same county, knight, and Robert Clyfford, knight, communicated and spoke together in the foresaid parish of St. Martin concerning a certain Peter Warbek (a native of Tournai [which is] under the obedience of the Archduke of Austria and Burgundy, and an enemy of the present lord king falsely pronouncing himself to be Richard, second son of the late King Edward the Fourth of England, [then] being in foreign parts overseas).

And then and there they falsely and treasonably conspired, imagined and encompassed the death and destruction of the same present lord king and the subversion of his realm of England, and, by raising and making war against the same king in his realm of England, to depose the same lord king and deprive him of his crown and royalty.

And, in order to implement and carry out their false and treasonable proposal, the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably confederated, concorded and agreed between them that the same Robert should cross over to the foresaid foreign parts to the present king's enemy Peter Warbek, and in the same Peter's service await the levying of war against the lord king in his realm of England; and that he should lead the same Peter into the kingdom of England with all his might and install him as king of England, and destroy the present lord king and depose him from his crown and royal dignity.

And furthermore, the said William Stanley then and there falsely promised and granted to the foregoing Robert Clyfford that, whenever and as often as the same Robert Clyfford should send anyone from those foreign parts to the same William Stanley, by a certain privy sign had between them, for the aid and assistance of him and the said Peter Warbek, enemies of the said lord king, the same William Stanley would aid and comfort them them to the best of his power; and he then and there falsely and treasonably promised to take the same Peter's part in raising war against the same lord king.

By virtue of which communication, conspiracy, imagination, promise, concord, agreement and comfort, the said Robert Clyfford afterwards (viz. on the fourteenth of June in the eighth year of the reign of the said lord king), in order to perform and carry out all and singular the premises against the said lord king, at the foresaid parish of St. Martin in the foresaid county falsely and treasonably set out on his journey towards the foresaid foreign parts to the foregoing Peter Warbek, and remained there in the same Peter Warbek's service in order to make war upon the said lord king.

And so the foresaid William Stanley and Robert Clyfford then and there falsely and treasonably adhered to, comforted, aided and assisted the foresaid Peter Warbek, enemy of the said king, against their due allegiance. "

Doug wrote:

Which makes me wonder just where, and why, the widely-known, and repeated, story about Sir William being executed for something he hadn't yet done originated? It could certainly just be anti-Tudor propaganda emphasizing HT's paranoia, but I wonder. If, as you suggested, Sir William' presence at Bosworth was simply a mistake of Vergil's, then the charges listed below make a lot more sense.

Marie:

I'm quite confident he was present at Bosworth in some capacity - no chronicler says he wasn't - but he wasn't the man who led the whole Stanley force - why would he be? He may have had enough men to have formed a separate 'battle', as historians seem to suggest, though the evidence for this seems to be non-existent. If the story of Sir William crowning Henry is correct (and it is echoed in Lady Bessy, where he places crowns on the heads of Henry and Elizabeth after their wedding), then he may not have been too far away from Richard when he fell. It is very puzzling, though, because Henry doesn't seem to have trusted him. Notice that the Bewsey deed was witnessed by Lord Stanley and two of his sons (Strange and Sir Edward), plus Piers Warburton (to whose hunting park Sir William had a few months earlier turned down an invitation because he couldn't get leave from 'Old Dyk'), but it was not witnessed by Sir William Stanley, so he was not with his brother at that critical juncture just before Lord Strange presented himself at court.

What intrigues me about the indictment is that Sir Robert Clifford turned King's Evidence. Vergil tells us this, and it must be correct since he is named in the indictment as a plotter, indeed, as chief plotter, but wasn't put on trial. So he is the source of the story, according to which Sir William encouraged him in conversation to go off and join PW but didn't really do anything more.

It is Vergil who claims he is supposed to have said he wouldn't fight against PW if he really was York:

" . . . Robert Clifford, partly induced by Henry's promises, and partly because he had heard that many men had been punished when the conspiracy was revealed, and nothing was more forsaken, nothing more forlorn, furtively decamped from Flanders. And the king, having had forewarning, quickly went to the Tower and there he awaited Robert's arrival. The purpose of this plan was that, if should Robert denounce any of the noblemen belonging to the conspiracy, they could be haled there and be placed in imprisonment without arousing suspicion. Some imagined that Robert had been sent as Henry's agent provocateur, and for that reason found it easy to return to his good graces. But there is good reason for thinking this thing happened differently than they fancied, because this counsel worked to Robert's harm. For he and his friends were branded with no mean mark of fraud, and subsequently Robert was far less in favor with the king, not being free of guilt. Therefore Robert, a very devoted follower of the House of York, seems to have crossed over to Margaret for the sake of harming Henry, being misled by error, since he regarded Peter as Prince Edward. I return to my subject.
Meanwhile Robert came, first threw himself at the king's feet, and begged for pardon. Then he was interrogated about the entire history of the conspiracy, and revealed what had transpired in Flanders. Finally, he revealed the names of his confederates, most conspicuously that of William Stanley. Learning this, the king was very disturbed that William had a share in this guilt, because he was his chamberlain, entrusted with all his affairs. Henry was grateful to him for his many good deeds, put particularly for this one, that it was especially by his help that he had defeated King Richard. For these reasons, at first he could not be brought to believe Richard's words, but after sure proofs were shown him, then he ordered William to be arrested and put to the question. He denied nothing, but frankly confessed his guilt, if he had offended in any way. And they say his offence was this. When William and Robert were having a conversation concerning this Peter who falsely claimed to be Edward's son, William announced he would never take up arms against the young man, if he knew for certain that he was indeed the son of Edward."

According to Vergil (who was not in England at this time), Henry was very reluctant to believe the worst of the man who had saved him at Bosworth, but one wonders whether Henry was actually fishing for dirt on Sir William. It's quite a weak charge, really, and there is no other witness to these conversations named. I think indictments from this period have to be taken with a pinch of salt - the deed has to be done on a named date and in the county where the trial was being held, and so what must sometimes have been quite a diffuse pattern of grouching and plotting was honed into one or more clear incidents that could be put before the court. Also, there's an extent to which Robert Clifford is trying to put the blame on Sir William for his own action in going off to join PW.

BTW, Robert Clifford had been a retainer of Richard's since the early 1470s.

Doug wrote:

Which makes me wonder just where, and why, the widely-known, and repeated, story about Sir William being executed for something he hadn't yet done originated? It could certainly just be anti-Tudor propaganda emphasizing HT's paranoia, but I wonder. If, as you suggested, Sir William' presence at Bosworth was simply a mistake of Vergil's, then the charges listed below make a lot more sense.

Marie:

I'm quite confident he was present at Bosworth in some capacity - no chronicler says he wasn't - but he wasn't the man who led the whole Stanley force - why would he be? He may have had enough men to have formed a separate 'battle', as historians seem to suggest, though the evidence for this seems to be non-existent. If the story of Sir William crowning Henry is correct (and it is echoed in Lady Bessy, where he places crowns on the heads of Henry and Elizabeth after their wedding), then he may not have been too far away from Richard when he fell. It is very puzzling, though, because Henry doesn't seem to have trusted him. Notice that the Bewsey deed was witnessed by Lord Stanley and two of his sons (Strange and Sir Edward), plus Piers Warburton (to whose hunting park Sir William had a few months earlier turned down an invitation because he couldn't get leave from 'Old Dyk'), but it was not witnessed by Sir William Stanley, so he was not with his brother at that critical juncture just before Lord Strange presented himself at court.

What intrigues me about the indictment is that Sir Robert Clifford turned King's Evidence. Vergil tells us this, and it must be correct since he is named in the indictment as a plotter, indeed, as chief plotter, but wasn't put on trial. So he is the source of the story, according to which Sir William encouraged him in conversation to go off and join PW but didn't really do anything more.

It is Vergil who claims he is supposed to have said he wouldn't fight against PW if he really was York:

" . . . Robert Clifford, partly induced by Henry's promises, and partly because he had heard that many men had been punished when the conspiracy was revealed, and nothing was more forsaken, nothing more forlorn, furtively decamped from Flanders. And the king, having had forewarning, quickly went to the Tower and there he awaited Robert's arrival. The purpose of this plan was that, if should Robert denounce any of the noblemen belonging to the conspiracy, they could be haled there and be placed in imprisonment without arousing suspicion. Some imagined that Robert had been sent as Henry's agent provocateur, and for that reason found it easy to return to his good graces. But there is good reason for thinking this thing happened differently than they fancied, because this counsel worked to Robert's harm. For he and his friends were branded with no mean mark of fraud, and subsequently Robert was far less in favor with the king, not being free of guilt. Therefore Robert, a very devoted follower of the House of York, seems to have crossed over to Margaret for the sake of harming Henry, being misled by error, since he regarded Peter as Prince Edward. I return to my subject.
Meanwhile Robert came, first threw himself at the king's feet, and begged for pardon. Then he was interrogated about the entire history of the conspiracy, and revealed what had transpired in Flanders. Finally, he revealed the names of his confederates, most conspicuously that of William Stanley. Learning this, the king was very disturbed that William had a share in this guilt, because he was his chamberlain, entrusted with all his affairs. Henry was grateful to him for his many good deeds, put particularly for this one, that it was especially by his help that he had defeated King Richard. For these reasons, at first he could not be brought to believe Richard's words, but after sure proofs were shown him, then he ordered William to be arrested and put to the question. He denied nothing, but frankly confessed his guilt, if he had offended in any way. And they say his offence was this. When William and Robert were having a conversation concerning this Peter who falsely claimed to be Edward's son, William announced he would never take up arms against the young man, if he knew for certain that he was indeed the son of Edward."

According to Vergil (who was not in England at this time), Henry was very reluctant to believe the worst of the man who had saved him at Bosworth, but one wonders whether Henry was actually fishing for dirt on Sir William. It's quite a weak charge, really, and there is no other witness to these conversations named. I think indictments from this period have to be taken with a pinch of salt - the deed has to be done on a named date and in the county where the trial was being held, and so what must sometimes have been quite a diffuse pattern of grouching and plotting was honed into one or more clear incidents that could be put before the court. Also, there's an extent to which Robert Clifford is trying to put the blame on Sir William for his own action in going off to join PW.

BTW, Robert Clifford had been a retainer of Richard's since the early 1470s.

David wrote:

It is as well also to bear in mind the animosity between the Clifford and Stanley families. There is the possibility that William was stitched up by Clifford.

Marie:

I don't know about animosity between the Stanleys and the Cliffords other than the fact that Stanley had been granted the Clifford's estates (which he swapped with Richard in the mid 1470s). I would love to hear about it, though, as it might be pertinent. I don't know where Robert Clifford's loyalties sat vis a vis the main family. If he was trying to earn his pardon by telling lies about Sir WS, and if Sir WS was really beloved by Henry, then he was playing a very dangerous game.

David wrote:

problem was that if William admitted to having said he would not fight against Warbeck if he really was of the house of York, then he had to prosecute him - otherwise, any conspiracy that was couched in impossible, conditional terms would be free from punishment. It would provide a precedent that would allow plotting with little fear of prosecution.

Marie:

I'm not sure I follow this one. Justice in those days was still not inexorable, but rather a matter of making examples. Some traitors were convicted and executed; others betrayed their friends in return for immunity from prosecution; still others (if first time offenders) were convicted but then pardoned.

I understand why, once Henry had decided to prosecute, he had Sir William charged with offering PW his support unconditionally - that is the sort of thing I meant earlier when I warned that indictments shouldn't be taken too literally. But I don't accept that he had no option but to try, convict, and condemn.

The fact is that Sir William hadn't done anything that could be definitely proved, so far as we can tell - it was all hearsay evidence. No other witnesses, no coded letters discovered, none of his own servants crossing over to make contact with the rebels. Why not just have a watch kept on him to see if he could be caught actually doing something?

For me it always comes back to the likelihood that Henry didn't like or trust Sir William very much to start with.

BTW, I've thought of another possible reason for Henry's suspicion, even if Sir William hadn't avoided charging with his brother to Henry's aid at Bosworth. If William had been a reluctant convert, or had even tried to persuade Lord Stanley to hang back during the battle, Henry is likely to have learned about this from others, possibly even from his own mother.

Weren't the Brechers the father and son executed in Leicester at the same time as Catesby? Do we know why they were executed?

Mary,

Weren't the Brechers the father and son executed in Leicester at the same time as Catesby? Do we know why they were executed?

Hilary wrote:Couple of tiny points. BTW thanks Marie I wouldn't profess to know anything about this other than that Sir William,'s Yorkist regalia was found after his death and that he had a brush with the young Richard.
Marie:Yes, I believe there were Yorkist emblems found in his keeping after his death according to Jean Gidman's book, but I don't recall the details off hand.Re the 'brush', if you're referring to the 1470 incident, it was between Richard and Lord Stanley. There's no mention of Sir William in the documentation.
Hilary:Firstly, I notice he and Clifford were meeting in the parish of St Martin's. Stillington of course was dead by now but we did wonder some time back whether he could have been a Yorkist mole, given some of the rather dodgy things which could have been going on at St Martin's. And he was also in the thick of it in Somerset. I know it's a wild thought, but I did bump into the Brechers again when looking at Thomas Hampton.
Marie:Sorry to disappoint you Hilary, but look again. This incident took place in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, not St. Martin le Grand. Wrong St Martin. The point is that tis was the location of Sir William's pied a terre in the capital.

Hilary:The 'brush' was I recall, when Richard was much younger
Marie:Younger than he was in 1470?

Hi,

Just thought I'd add hat, looking at the surrounding text from the trial, you have the following timeline:-

1) 14 March 1493 (our style): Clyfford & Sir William Stanley's treasonable conversation with each other;

2) 14 June 1493: Clyfford sets out for the continent.

3) 3 February 1495: indictment approved by the court.

4) 6 February 1495: Sir William Stanley brought into court to plead. Pleaded Not Guilty (note that this completely contradicts Vergil's claim that he 'frankly confessed his guilt').

5) 7 February 1495: Jury assembled in court & Sir William returned to hear the verdict, which was Guilty.

What interested me is that almost two years passed between the alleged conversation with Clifford and Sir William's trial, and yet Clifford couldn't come up with any more recent dirt on Sir William, even though he'd allegedly established a pass code for messengers to go between them. There were no other witnesses, and Sir William didn't confess to the crime. It looks even fishier to me than it did before.

Incidentally, this case was one of several tried by a commission of oyer and terminer to which Sir William's brother the Earl of Derby had been appointed. Derby sat on the panel at the trials of the other men, but not at his brother's.

David wrote:

It is as well also to bear in mind the animosity between the Clifford and Stanley families. There is the possibility that William was stitched up by Clifford.

Marie:

I don't know about animosity between the Stanleys and the Cliffords other than the fact that Stanley had been granted the Clifford's estates (which he swapped with Richard in the mid 1470s). I would love to hear about it, though, as it might be pertinent. I don't know where Robert Clifford's loyalties sat vis a vis the main family. If he was trying to earn his pardon by telling lies about Sir WS, and if Sir WS was really beloved by Henry, then he was playing a very dangerous game.

David wrote:

problem was that if William admitted to having said he would not fight against Warbeck if he really was of the house of York, then he had to prosecute him - otherwise, any conspiracy that was couched in impossible, conditional terms would be free from punishment. It would provide a precedent that would allow plotting with little fear of prosecution.

Marie:

I'm not sure I follow this one. Justice in those days was still not inexorable, but rather a matter of making examples. Some traitors were convicted and executed; others betrayed their friends in return for immunity from prosecution; still others (if first time offenders) were convicted but then pardoned.

I understand why, once Henry had decided to prosecute, he had Sir William charged with offering PW his support unconditionally - that is the sort of thing I meant earlier when I warned that indictments shouldn't be taken too literally. But I don't accept that he had no option but to try, convict, and condemn.

The fact is that Sir William hadn't done anything that could be definitely proved, so far as we can tell - it was all hearsay evidence. No other witnesses, no coded letters discovered, none of his own servants crossing over to make contact with the rebels. Why not just have a watch kept on him to see if he could be caught actually doing something?

For me it always comes back to the likelihood that Henry didn't like or trust Sir William very much to start with.

BTW, I've thought of another possible reason for Henry's suspicion, even if Sir William hadn't avoided charging with his brother to Henry's aid at Bosworth. If William had been a reluctant convert, or had even tried to persuade Lord Stanley to hang back during the battle, Henry is likely to have learned about this from others, possibly even from his own mother.

Sorry last message a bit rambling and off the point - train of thought frequently interrupted!

Just to go back to my original post to Doug: I was putting forward the view that Mike Jones' theory that Lord Stanley didn't turn up to Bosworth and that it was Sir William who led the charge is not supported by the evidence. Lord Stanley definitely was there, led his kinsmen at the battle and was given the earldom of Derby specifically as a reward for it. In contrast, Sir William Stanley got no discernible reward, and was executed ten years later on the basis of weak evidence.

Having checked, I see you are right, and that it was William Stanley, not Thomas, who had been granted the barony of Skipton and swapped it with Richard for Chirk in 1475 (it is so easy to muddle the brothers up!). But whether Robert Clifford was trying to get his own back on Sir William for this is not germane to the question of why Henry chose to make such capital of it.

Sir William's Yorkist background doesn't explain his lack of reward after Bosworth (Henry was actually generous to the men who had saved him) or Henry's readiness to be rid of him.

Re Robert Clifford. Despite this being Moor's suggestion in his article, I don't think he was the sort to have taken great risks to bring down the man who had once held the Clifford lands if he thought the King would question his story, as he was a man who seems to have put his own safety before almost everything else. He had very likely already turned King's Evidence once before, incriminating his own brother for a pardon from Richard III, because his brother Roger was tried and convicted of treason in late April 1485, and Robert obtained a full pardon on the 28th of that month. Perhaps he had hoped his friends could save Roger at the last minute, as there was an attempt to rescue him from the hurdle as he was being dragged to Tyburn, but it failed.

When he returned to England from Perkin's court late in 1495, it was - at least officially - as a traitor and on the understanding that his pardon would be contingent on providing sufficient information regarding secret conspirators in England. But Clifford's name is not mentioned in the indictments of the other men tried by the same commission so, if Vergil is right about his having provided the names of many noblemen, Sir WS seems to have been the only one to have paid the price. Yet Sir Robert was not only pardoned but was given a reward of £500 and a top job.

In suggesting Clifford had been a spy of Henry's all along, Moor does not deal with the time lag between WS's alleged offence and the indictment: aren't spies putting in regular reports?

It seems plausible to me that Robert Clifford had, as Moor suggests, been allowed by Henry to go with his brother-in-law William Barley to Perkin's court in order to send back information, but if so that information does not seem to have included the fateful conversation with Sir William Stanley. His agreement to testify to that appears to date to December 1494. And where in this story is Clifford's brother-in-law William Barley, who went overseas with him, stayed with Perkin a further two years after Clifford's return home, and whose allegiance had on his return to be guaranteed by his kinsmen for life?

Henry's dealings with Sir William Stanley present a problem, IMHO. I'm not pretending to have answers, only suggestions as to what might have been going on. More research would be great. What does seem clear, which is where I started, is that it was Thomas who led the Stanleys to Henry's aid on 22 August 1485.

I'm quite confident he was present at Bosworth in some capacity - no chronicler says he wasn't - but he wasn't the man who led the whole Stanley force - why would he be? He may have had enough men to have formed a separate 'battle', as historians seem to suggest, though the evidence for this seems to be non-existent. If the story of Sir William crowning Henry is correct (and it is echoed in Lady Bessy, where he places crowns on the heads of Henry and Elizabeth after their wedding), then he may not have been too far away from Richard when he fell. It is very puzzling, though, because Henry doesn't seem to have trusted him. Notice that the Bewsey deed was witnessed by Lord Stanley and two of his sons (Strange and Sir Edward), plus Piers Warburton (to whose hunting park Sir William had a few months earlier turned down an invitation because he couldn't get leave from 'Old Dyk'), but it was not witnessed by Sir William Stanley, so he was not with his brother at that critical juncture just before Lord Strange presented himself at court.

What intrigues me about the indictment is that Sir Robert Clifford turned King's Evidence. Vergil tells us this, and it must be correct since he is named in the indictment as a plotter, indeed, as chief plotter, but wasn't put on trial. So he is the source of the story, according to which Sir William encouraged him in conversation to go off and join PW but didn't really do anything more.

It is Vergil who claims he is supposed to have said he wouldn't fight against PW if he really was York:

" . . . Robert Clifford, partly induced by Henry's promises, and partly because he had heard that many men had been punished when the conspiracy was revealed, and nothing was more forsaken, nothing more forlorn, furtively decamped from Flanders. And the king, having had forewarning, quickly went to the Tower and there he awaited Robert's arrival. The purpose of this plan was that, if should Robert denounce any of the noblemen belonging to the conspiracy, they could be haled there and be placed in imprisonment without arousing suspicion. Some imagined that Robert had been sent as Henry's agent provocateur, and for that reason found it easy to return to his good graces. But there is good reason for thinking this thing happened differently than they fancied, because this counsel worked to Robert's harm. For he and his friends were branded with no mean mark of fraud, and subsequently Robert was far less in favor with the king, not being free of guilt. Therefore Robert, a very devoted follower of the House of York, seems to have crossed over to Margaret for the sake of harming Henry, being misled by error, since he regarded Peter as Prince Edward. I return to my subject.
Meanwhile Robert came, first threw himself at the king's feet, and begged for pardon. Then he was interrogated about the entire history of the conspiracy, and revealed what had transpired in Flanders. Finally, he revealed the names of his confederates, most conspicuously that of William Stanley. Learning this, the king was very disturbed that William had a share in this guilt, because he was his chamberlain, entrusted with all his affairs. Henry was grateful to him for his many good deeds, put particularly for this one, that it was especially by his help that he had defeated King Richard. For these reasons, at first he could not be brought to believe Richard's words, but after sure proofs were shown him, then he ordered William to be arrested and put to the question. He denied nothing, but frankly confessed his guilt, if he had offended in any way. And they say his offence was this. When William and Robert were having a conversation concerning this Peter who falsely claimed to be Edward's son, William announced he would never take up arms against the young man, if he knew for certain that he was indeed the son of Edward."

According to Vergil (who was not in England at this time), Henry was very reluctant to believe the worst of the man who had saved him at Bosworth, but one wonders whether Henry was actually fishing for dirt on Sir William. It's quite a weak charge, really, and there is no other witness to these conversations named. I think indictments from this period have to be taken with a pinch of salt - the deed has to be done on a named date and in the county where the trial was being held, and so what must sometimes have been quite a diffuse pattern of grouching and plotting was honed into one or more clear incidents that could be put before the court. Also, there's an extent to which Robert Clifford is trying to put the blame on Sir William for his own action in going off to join PW.

BTW, Robert Clifford had been a retainer of Richard's since the early 1470s.

Doug wrote:

Marie:

Well, yes, I do see what you mean, but it's a drastic way of solving the problem unless he had knowledge of some more concrete threat. Sack him, giving him a highly honourable but harmless gong as a consolation prize, and appoint a new doorkeeper? Or keep him in the Tower until the Pretender has been dealt with, and then send him back to North Wales?

I still find the Clifford business fishy, but perhaps Henry was so spooked by his Chamberlain's wavering that he wanted to send a strong message to everyone else who had personal access to him. But dangerous - suppose Derby had then turned against him too?

Marie wrote:

Just thought I'd add hat, looking at the surrounding text from the trial, you have the following timeline:-

1) 14 March 1493 (our style): Clyfford & Sir William Stanley's treasonable conversation with each other;

2) 14 June 1493: Clyfford sets out for the continent.

3) 3 February 1495: indictment approved by the court.

4) 6 February 1495: Sir William Stanley brought into court to plead. Pleaded Not Guilty (note that this completely contradicts Vergil's claim that he 'frankly confessed his guilt').

5) 7 February 1495: Jury assembled in court & Sir William returned to hear the verdict, which was Guilty.

What interested me is that almost two years passed between the alleged conversation with Clifford and Sir William's trial, and yet Clifford couldn't come up with any more recent dirt on Sir William, even though he'd allegedly established a pass code for messengers to go between them. There were no other witnesses, and Sir William didn't confess to the crime. It looks even fishier to me than it did before.

Incidentally, this case was one of several tried by a commission of oyer and terminer to which Sir William's brother the Earl of Derby had been appointed. Derby sat on the panel at the trials of the other men, but not at his brother's.

Doug here:

I know this is in what if territory, but here goes:

What if Clifford either brought or sent back information that Warbeck was Richard of Shrewsbury? That information most certainly couldn't be made public, not even at Sir William's trial. In fact, such information would make keeping Sir William in a position of responsibility anywhere near Henry extremely dangerous. Because there would be the possibility (probability?) that Sir William, rather than just standing aside, might decide to do something active in support of Richard.

That doesn't explain why Henry had Sir William executed, but Henry may merely have been spooked by the discovery that it was his wife's brother in Flanders and decided to permanently remove a potential supporter during what might be a very critical period. There was, I understand, an invasion of Kent in July of 1495 by Warbeck and some of his supporters. Perhaps Henry had some intimation of that; possibly via Clifford?

I hope this isn't too speculative, but it might help explain things. I hope so, anyway!

Doug

Marie wrote:

Doug wrote:

Marie:

Well, yes, I do see what you mean, but it's a drastic way of solving the problem unless he had knowledge of some more concrete threat. Sack him, giving him a highly honourable but harmless gong as a consolation prize, and appoint a new doorkeeper? Or keep him in the Tower until the Pretender has been dealt with, and then send him back to North Wales?

I still find the Clifford business fishy, but perhaps Henry was so spooked by his Chamberlain's wavering that he wanted to send a strong message to everyone else who had personal access to him. But dangerous - suppose Derby had then turned against him too?

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol wrote:

Thanks for all the valuable information and apologies for deleting so much. Any thoughts as to why Vergil would reverse the roles? Sir William was executed for treason about seven years before Vergil arrived in England, IIRC. Crediting the wrong Stanley would not gain Vergil any favors from Henry. Maybe it was just confusion on his part. (Which puts him in good company, I think!)

Marie responds:

Sorry Carol, my bad. You will find from my more recent post that it is a bit more complicated. Earlier writers (Crowland, Henry VII himself, Commines, Molinet) place Lord Stanley at the head of the family forces at Bosworth. Actually, of these only one specifies what they did there, and that is Molinet who says that after Oxford's forces had defeated Richard's vanguard the Stanleys joined in with the rout of those particular men - i.e. a different charge at a different stage of the battle.

Then we get the Great Chronicle, which refers to Lord Stanley bringing his troops to the battlefield on Henry's side but actually (as I saw on closer reading) doesn't say what he did when he got there and doesn't mention that final charge. But he does give the information that Richard's helmet with his crown on it came into the possession of Sir William Stanley, who after the victory set it on Henry's head.

Whilst this does suggest Sir William was close to the action when Richard fell, and that it was probably one of his own men who deprived Richard of his helmet*, it doesn't tell us how this may have come about.

After that we have Vergil, who brings in for the first time, so far as I am aware, the story of the Stanley charge against Richard's cavalry forces, and he tells us this charge was led by Sir William Stanley, which he may have deduced from the G.C.. But then he says that Lord Stanley set the crown on Henry's head.

The Great Chronicle was IMHO, composed early in the reign of Henry VIII (Isabel Thornley's much earlier dating has no particular grounds, doesn't seem to fit and has been seriously questioned since), and this is definitely true of Vergil, so no need by then to worry about Henry VII's reaction.

I haven't ever got round to reading Anne Crawford's book on Bosworth, but I know she is sceptical of Vergil's description of the battle in general because it is a) too similar to his description of Agincourt, and b) based on the Roman model of troop deployment.

*This does remind me of an article in the Bulletin a couple of years ago, but I can't remember the details, I'm afraid.

Marie wrote:

I haven't ever got round to reading Anne Crawford's book on Bosworth

Marie corrects herself:

Sorry - meant Anne Curry.

Doug wrote:

"As for the possibility of Henry alienating Derby with execution of Sir William, I get the impression that the over-riding concern of Thomas Stanley was the maintenance and aggrandizement of the House of Stanley. By 1495 there weren't any Yorkist candidates for the throne capable of raising the forces necessary to defeat Tudor's in battle. The attempt to put Warwick on the throne had failed and Warbeck's failed attempts had shown that even someone claiming to be the legitimate son of Edward IV couldn't raise enough support. So who was there for Lord Thomas to support?"

Carol responds:

The de la Poles made their claim after the November 1499 executions of "Warbeck" and Warwick. But after the imprisonment of Edmund (and the execution of Sir James Tyrrell for supporting him) in 1502, any incentive for supporting the de la Poles would be gone. Richard de la Pole, the so-called White Rose, was never a real threat to the Tudors so far as I know as he never returned to England after 1504, the same year that Lord Stanley (Derby) died.

But I doubt that Lord Thomas/Derby ever seriously considered rebellion against HT even after his brother's execution. He had fared well under Richard III (and might well have continued to support him if he hadn't been married to MB!), but he had no reason to support any other Yorkist claimant once HT had rewarded him with the earldom of Derby for his help at Bosworth. He knew which side his bread was buttered on.

Sir William is more of a puzzle as he seems to have been a genuine (if self-serving) Yorkist. I suspect his original motive in rebelling was the restoration of Edward V, in which case his support of HT may well have been reluctant and conditional on his marrying EoY (as HT probably knew). Lord Stanley, being HT's father-in-law, would not have needed that incentive. He only had to decide which side had the best chance of winning and which king would reward him most richly.

Carol

Even so Stanley could not be absolutely sure that Tudor would win the battle, hence his usual habit of keeping his powder dry until the last minute.

Marie with one last thought:

Hi guys. So much of the conventional wisdom regarding the battle has no real grounding in early sources. A couple of things are puzzling:

1) Why, if the Stanleys didn't intervene till the fat lady was singing, did Henry express, and show, such gratitude to Lord Stanley, and show such confidence in his brother? After you reminding me, Doug, about Sir William being made Lord Chamberlain, I think the usual excuse for his execution - that he intervened too late to display commitment and almost allowed Henry to be killed - seems to lack something.

2) Why would Richard simply have Lord Strange kept in custody after his escape attempt in Nottingham, and then suddenly decide, during the battle, to order his execution? Conventional explanation (derived from Hall, I think) is that it was because of Lord Stanley's reply to Richard's summons about the additional sons, but why would Lord Stanley answer in that fashion if he was still waiting to see what way the battle would go? It seems to me that if Richard did give the order for Strange's execution then something major and particular must have happened to cause it. Perhaps the Stanley's were not as uncommitted as has been suggested in modern times.

Anyhow, I just had a weekend away, so my brain go a much-needed holiday, and I came up with the following scenario. It's speculative, but everything in it derives from some early source of other:-

1) After Norfolk's death, Lord Stanley brought his forces to assist Oxford in the rout of Norfolk's men, thus making sure that Surrey couldn't succeed in regrouping his father's men and carrying on. This accords with both de Valera's letter of March 1486 and Molinet.

De Valera says that Lord Tamorlant, "who commanded the wing to the left of King Richard, left his position and passed in front of the King's vanguard with ten thousand combatants, and then turned his back to Earl Henry and began to fight fiercely against the King's vanguard, and thus did all the others who had pledged their allegiance to King Henry."

Molinet says "Richard's vanguard, having turned in flight, was gathered up by Lord Standelay who, with fully twenty thousand combatants, came with all speed to the Earl's assistance."

2) Richard now ordered the execution of Lord Strange, whilst he gathers his household to proceed to the inevitable next phase of the battle - the engagement of the two centres. Crowland is a bit muddled about the order for Strange's execution. He has the order given before the start of the battle, because Lord Stanley has already joined Henry's forces, "those to whom this task was given, seeing that the matter in hand was at a very critical stage and that it was more important than the elimination of one man, failed to carry out that king's cruel command and, on their own judgement, let the man go and returned to the heat of the battle."

So was it before the battle or not? I suggest not. If Richard's own men were so busy, then perhaps they were readying themselves for the charge against Henry.

3) The Stanleys again join in with the rout. Early sources talk of French, or Welsh, closing in on Richard for the kill, so they may have been too late for that, but one of Sir William's men picks up the crown, with which Sir W. then crowns the new king.

Certainly the loss of the vanguard was bad news for Richard, but it was not the end of the battle. Only 1/3 of each army had actually engaged at that point.

The above scenario also leaves open the possibility that Sir William and Lord Stanley were positioned in different parts of the field, and that Lord Stanley led his men against Norfolk's fleeing vanguard, whilst Sir William brought his men in at the end of the battle.

What do you all think?

Mary wrote:

Marie with one last thought:

Hi guys. So much of the conventional wisdom regarding the battle has no real grounding in early sources. A couple of things are puzzling:

1) Why, if the Stanleys didn't intervene till the fat lady was singing, did Henry express, and show, such gratitude to Lord Stanley, and show such confidence in his brother? After you reminding me, Doug, about Sir William being made Lord Chamberlain, I think the usual excuse for his execution - that he intervened too late to display commitment and almost allowed Henry to be killed - seems to lack something.

2) Why would Richard simply have Lord Strange kept in custody after his escape attempt in Nottingham, and then suddenly decide, during the battle, to order his execution? Conventional explanation (derived from Hall, I think) is that it was because of Lord Stanley's reply to Richard's summons about the additional sons, but why would Lord Stanley answer in that fashion if he was still waiting to see what way the battle would go? It seems to me that if Richard did give the order for Strange's execution then something major and particular must have happened to cause it. Perhaps the Stanley's were not as uncommitted as has been suggested in modern times.

Anyhow, I just had a weekend away, so my brain go a much-needed holiday, and I came up with the following scenario. It's speculative, but everything in it derives from some early source of other:-

1) After Norfolk's death, Lord Stanley brought his forces to assist Oxford in the rout of Norfolk's men, thus making sure that Surrey couldn't succeed in regrouping his father's men and carrying on. This accords with both de Valera's letter of March 1486 and Molinet.

De Valera says that Lord Tamorlant, "who commanded the wing to the left of King Richard, left his position and passed in front of the King's vanguard with ten thousand combatants, and then turned his back to Earl Henry and began to fight fiercely against the King's vanguard, and thus did all the others who had pledged their allegiance to King Henry."

Molinet says "Richard's vanguard, having turned in flight, was gathered up by Lord Standelay who, with fully twenty thousand combatants, came with all speed to the Earl's assistance."

2) Richard now ordered the execution of Lord Strange, whilst he gathers his household to proceed to the inevitable next phase of the battle - the engagement of the two centres. Crowland is a bit muddled about the order for Strange's execution. He has the order given before the start of the battle, because Lord Stanley has already joined Henry's forces, "those to whom this task was given, seeing that the matter in hand was at a very critical stage and that it was more important than the elimination of one man, failed to carry out that king's cruel command and, on their own judgement, let the man go and returned to the heat of the battle."

So was it before the battle or not? I suggest not. If Richard's own men were so busy, then perhaps they were readying themselves for the charge against Henry.

3) The Stanleys again join in with the rout. Early sources talk of French, or Welsh, closing in on Richard for the kill, so they may have been too late for that, but one of Sir William's men picks up the crown, with which Sir W. then crowns the new king.

Certainly the loss of the vanguard was bad news for Richard, but it was not the end of the battle. Only 1/3 of each army had actually engaged at that point.

The above scenario also leaves open the possibility that Sir William and Lord Stanley were positioned in different parts of the field, and that Lord Stanley led his men against Norfolk's fleeing vanguard, whilst Sir William brought his men in at the end of the battle.

What do you all think?

I've never read it as last ditch, but an opportunity, unfortunately like the opportunity to save his Yorkist troops outside Sandel Castle that had prompted his father to charge, unaware of Lancastrian troops waiting for such an opportunity. Richard saw Tudor with a small entourage riding in the direction of Stanley, Thomas, to get him into the fighting which surprisingly with the death of Norfolk had evened out the odds against Tudor. Richard saw a clear path to his enemy and a way to finish the day early by killing him. His charge crossed in front of the Stanley forces of Thomas, while Tudor had crossed in front of those of William, both of whom were waiting to see what would happen before committing their family to one side or the other, and it was not until Richard engaged with Tudor that William saw his opportunity and moved in.

Mary wrote:

Marie with one last thought:

Hi guys. So much of the conventional wisdom regarding the battle has no real grounding in early sources. A couple of things are puzzling:

1) Why, if the Stanleys didn't intervene till the fat lady was singing, did Henry express, and show, such gratitude to Lord Stanley, and show such confidence in his brother? After you reminding me, Doug, about Sir William being made Lord Chamberlain, I think the usual excuse for his execution - that he intervened too late to display commitment and almost allowed Henry to be killed - seems to lack something.

2) Why would Richard simply have Lord Strange kept in custody after his escape attempt in Nottingham, and then suddenly decide, during the battle, to order his execution? Conventional explanation (derived from Hall, I think) is that it was because of Lord Stanley's reply to Richard's summons about the additional sons, but why would Lord Stanley answer in that fashion if he was still waiting to see what way the battle would go? It seems to me that if Richard did give the order for Strange's execution then something major and particular must have happened to cause it. Perhaps the Stanley's were not as uncommitted as has been suggested in modern times.

Anyhow, I just had a weekend away, so my brain go a much-needed holiday, and I came up with the following scenario. It's speculative, but everything in it derives from some early source of other:-

1) After Norfolk's death, Lord Stanley brought his forces to assist Oxford in the rout of Norfolk's men, thus making sure that Surrey couldn't succeed in regrouping his father's men and carrying on. This accords with both de Valera's letter of March 1486 and Molinet.

De Valera says that Lord Tamorlant, "who commanded the wing to the left of King Richard, left his position and passed in front of the King's vanguard with ten thousand combatants, and then turned his back to Earl Henry and began to fight fiercely against the King's vanguard, and thus did all the others who had pledged their allegiance to King Henry."

Molinet says "Richard's vanguard, having turned in flight, was gathered up by Lord Standelay who, with fully twenty thousand combatants, came with all speed to the Earl's assistance."

2) Richard now ordered the execution of Lord Strange, whilst he gathers his household to proceed to the inevitable next phase of the battle - the engagement of the two centres. Crowland is a bit muddled about the order for Strange's execution. He has the order given before the start of the battle, because Lord Stanley has already joined Henry's forces, "those to whom this task was given, seeing that the matter in hand was at a very critical stage and that it was more important than the elimination of one man, failed to carry out that king's cruel command and, on their own judgement, let the man go and returned to the heat of the battle."

So was it before the battle or not? I suggest not. If Richard's own men were so busy, then perhaps they were readying themselves for the charge against Henry.

3) The Stanleys again join in with the rout. Early sources talk of French, or Welsh, closing in on Richard for the kill, so they may have been too late for that, but one of Sir William's men picks up the crown, with which Sir W. then crowns the new king.

Certainly the loss of the vanguard was bad news for Richard, but it was not the end of the battle. Only 1/3 of each army had actually engaged at that point.

The above scenario also leaves open the possibility that Sir William and Lord Stanley were positioned in different parts of the field, and that Lord Stanley led his men against Norfolk's fleeing vanguard, whilst Sir William brought his men in at the end of the battle.

What do you all think?

Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (243) Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. Visit Your Group " Privacy " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use
.

Hilary wrote:So it's logical that they could have done a deal to gain support for their protegee, the young Edward. And this might indeed have been shared with MB who needed a deal for her son. But I do think Buckingham put a spanner in the works by acting without due consideration or caution.

That puts the Woodvilles, MB and possibly Buckingham courting the same people to achieve a common outcome with a different final agenda for each, ie Edward V to be King (Woodvilles), MB (Henry VII) and Buckingham (himself). Interesting in the light of the recent Stanley discussions, given that the rumours about the Princes being dead emerged around the time of Buckingham's rebellion. MB, Stanley and Morton had nothing to gain from Edward V, so it would have served their interest if potential supporters thought he was dead. After the rebellion, Stanley was made Constable of England and had access to the Princes and was in a position to have them moved, or possibly worse. I have long spected those three were involved in the Princes fate, although, for all her faults, I don't see MB as a child murderer. Would Stanley have arranged the murder without her knowledge? He betrayed Richard at Bosworth and appears to have been rather casual about the possible execution of his own son, so maybe he was enough of a sociopath to do that.

Nico

Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (243) Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. Visit Your Group " Privacy " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use
.

Hilary wrote:So it's logical that they could have done a deal to gain support for their protegee, the young Edward. And this might indeed have been shared with MB who needed a deal for her son. But I do think Buckingham put a spanner in the works by acting without due consideration or caution.

That puts the Woodvilles, MB and possibly Buckingham courting the same people to achieve a common outcome with a different final agenda for each, ie Edward V to be King (Woodvilles), MB (Henry VII) and Buckingham (himself). Interesting in the light of the recent Stanley discussions, given that the rumours about the Princes being dead emerged around the time of Buckingham's rebellion. MB, Stanley and Morton had nothing to gain from Edward V, so it would have served their interest if potential supporters thought he was dead. After the rebellion, Stanley was made Constable of England and had access to the Princes and was in a position to have them moved, or possibly worse. I have long spected those three were involved in the Princes fate, although, for all her faults, I don't see MB as a child murderer. Would Stanley have arranged the murder without her knowledge? He betrayed Richard at Bosworth and appears to have been rather casual about the possible execution of his own son, so maybe he was enough of a sociopath to do that.

Nico

Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (243) Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. Visit Your Group " Privacy " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use
.

Marie continued: 2) Why would Richard simply have Lord Strange kept in custody after his escape attempt in Nottingham, and then suddenly decide, during the battle, to order his execution? Conventional explanation (derived from Hall, I think) is that it was because of Lord Stanley's reply to Richard's summons about the additional sons, but why would Lord Stanley answer in that fashion if he was still waiting to see what way the battle would go? It seems to me that if Richard did give the order for Strange's execution then something major and particular must have happened to cause it. Perhaps the Stanley's were not as uncommitted as has been suggested in modern times. Doug here: It rather looks as if, in an attempt to make Lord Stanley appear so nobly committed to the true king,(aka Henry Tudor), that someone may have let a bit of the truth slip out: Henry became king only via treachery on the part of the Stanleys, doesn't it? Where's that skepticism that should accompany any attempt at writing history? I can understand the lack of skepticism while the Tudors were still around, but now?

Marie conclude: Anyhow, I just had a weekend away, so my brain go a much-needed holiday, and I came up with the following scenario. It's speculative, but everything in it derives from some early source of other:- 1) After Norfolk's death, Lord Stanley brought his forces to assist Oxford in the rout of Norfolk's men, thus making sure that Surrey couldn't succeed in regrouping his father's men and carrying on. This accords with both de Valera's letter of March 1486 and Molinet. De Valera says that Lord Tamorlant, "who commanded the wing to the left of King Richard, left his position and passed in front of the King's vanguard with ten thousand combatants, and then turned his back to Earl Henry and began to fight fiercely against the King's vanguard, and thus did all the others who had pledged their allegiance to King Henry." Molinet says "Richard's vanguard, having turned in flight, was gathered up by Lord Standelay who, with fully twenty thousand combatants, came with all speed to the Earl's assistance." 2) Richard now ordered the execution of Lord Strange, whilst he gathers his household to proceed to the inevitable next phase of the battle - the engagement of the two centres. Crowland is a bit muddled about the order for Strange's execution. He has the order given before the start of the battle, because Lord Stanley has already joined Henry's forces, "those to whom this task was given, seeing that the matter in hand was at a very critical stage and that it was more important than the elimination of one man, failed to carry out that king's cruel command and, on their own judgement, let the man go and returned to the heat of the battle." So was it before the battle or not? I suggest not. If Richard's own men were so busy, then perhaps they were readying themselves for the charge against Henry. 3) The Stanleys again join in with the rout. Early sources talk of French, or Welsh, closing in on Richard for the kill, so they may have been too late for that, but one of Sir William's men picks up the crown, with which Sir W. then crowns the new king. Certainly the loss of the vanguard was bad news for Richard, but it was not the end of the battle. Only 1/3 of each army had actually engaged at that point. The above scenario also leaves open the possibility that Sir William and Lord Stanley were positioned in different parts of the field, and that Lord Stanley led his men against Norfolk's fleeing vanguard, whilst Sir William brought his men in at the end of the battle. What do you all think? Doug here: Except for the reported numbers (probably should drop a zero), your scenario sounds plausible and helps account for what transpired later on with regards to Tudor's treatment of Lord Thomas and Sir William. IMO, anyway. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol, Regarding hard line Lancastrians. There were none with Henry. All his servants and his uncle's had been sent home and replaced by Breton guards. Edward Woodville was perhaps was in the same country as Henry, but I think he wasn't joining him. Brittany was a natural place of safety for him because of his family ties to the Duchy.
I think most of his followers arrived after the failed rebellion. In fact, he was delayed in France, so he returned to find a group of people who had risked a lot but whom he had never met.
RegardsDavid
On 8 Dec 2017 7:20 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Doug wrote:The only thing I would quibble with in post is the idea that, in 1483, Margaret Beaufort was angling to make her son king. I most certainly could be mistaken, but I believe she was doing what she'd been doing for over a decade, trying to get Henry back in England without and conditions being placed on his return. It appears to me that, at that point in time anyway, both Margaret and Morton did have something to gain from helping to return Edward V to the throne. Margaret would get her son back and Morton would likely become the major player in national affairs that he, seemingly, felt was his due. Presuming the rebellion was successful, it would be followed by the usual attainders, thus removing a goodly number of the nobility, both upper and lesser, from possible employment by the new regime.

I can't be sure either when Henry Tudor emerged as a viable Lancastrian claimant or what Margaret Beaufort initially intended for him, although I always suspected that she had it in mind when she started negotiating the marriage of HT and EofY. I think this was in the early stages of Buckingham's rebellion (around August/September 1483), but this could have simply been a step favouring HT's return, while cementing a strong Woodville link in event of the restoration of Edward V.
As far as I know, the interests of the plotters if Edward V was Kingwere :
Woodvilles: They already dominated his council (along with some inlaws). Although Anthony and Richard Grey were dead, Edward, Lionel and Richard Woodville would have dominated Edward V, along with the Marquis of Dorset.

Duke of Buckingham: His wife was a Woodville, and his children first cousins of EV. He may have been well favoured under him. I always thought that since he was her nephew MB had persuaded him to push his claim, but could Catherine Woodville have persuaded him that he and their children would benefit more from EV than Richard, so he joined them in the early stages? It would have only been a matter of time before Richard discovered his betrayal, but he may have realized that he wouldn't have gained as much as he thought from the Woodville clique, so he pushed his own claim - which would have favoured MB more. This may have given him the motivation to murder the Princes.
Margaret Beaufort and Lord Stanley: MB didn't have anything to gain from Edward V and the Woodvilles without a marriage alliance between HT and EofY. The main benefit would have been that he may have allowed HT's return as a reward for her assistance. Also, HT may have been given an important role, plus perhaps more land and a more important title, but that is speculative and Buckingham could have given the same and probably more. Stanley was unlikely to have benefited personally from EV, but would have from HT and possibly Buckingham.
Could it have been possible that MB would have been content with Buckingham as King and Henry's guaranteed return? If so, would the EofY alliance have been of any use? Did she only consider HT after it had all gone wrong for Buckingham?
Also, if Stanley murdered the Princes, when did he do it? If it was in the Tower in 1483 while Stanley was Constable, Richard would have found out. He would have arranged for their removal first, but even then Richard would have probably known where they were. If he was responsible, the murder is more likely to have been committed shortly after Bosworth.)

Morton and Bray: Whatever contact they may have had with the Woodvilles, they seem to have been Lancastrian at heart, and closer to MB.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Nico

I couldn't see MB living with someone who had disposed of the princes; that absolutely wasn't her style. I could see her being involved in a strategy to conceal them in plain sight, either here or possibly at a university overseas. This would explain how HT could be so sure that Warbeck was a pretender; because he knew where they really were.
Just a thought? H
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017, 13:27:11 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:The only thing I would quibble with in post is the idea that, in 1483, Margaret Beaufort was angling to make her son king. I most certainly could be mistaken, but I believe she was doing what she'd been doing for over a decade, trying to get Henry back in England without and conditions being placed on his return. It appears to me that, at that point in time anyway, both Margaret and Morton did have something to gain from helping to return Edward V to the throne. Margaret would get her son back and Morton would likely become the major player in national affairs that he, seemingly, felt was his due. Presuming the rebellion was successful, it would be followed by the usual attainders, thus removing a goodly number of the nobility, both upper and lesser, from possible employment by the new regime.

I can't be sure either when Henry Tudor emerged as a viable Lancastrian claimant or what Margaret Beaufort initially intended for him, although I always suspected that she had it in mind when she started negotiating the marriage of HT and EofY. I think this was in the early stages of Buckingham's rebellion (around August/September 1483), but this could have simply been a step favouring HT's return, while cementing a strong Woodville link in event of the restoration of Edward V.
As far as I know, the interests of the plotters if Edward V was Kingwere :
Woodvilles: They already dominated his council (along with some inlaws). Although Anthony and Richard Grey were dead, Edward, Lionel and Richard Woodville would have dominated Edward V, along with the Marquis of Dorset.

Duke of Buckingham: His wife was a Woodville, and his children first cousins of EV. He may have been well favoured under him. I always thought that since he was her nephew MB had persuaded him to push his claim, but could Catherine Woodville have persuaded him that he and their children would benefit more from EV than Richard, so he joined them in the early stages? It would have only been a matter of time before Richard discovered his betrayal, but he may have realized that he wouldn't have gained as much as he thought from the Woodville clique, so he pushed his own claim - which would have favoured MB more. This may have given him the motivation to murder the Princes.
Margaret Beaufort and Lord Stanley: MB didn't have anything to gain from Edward V and the Woodvilles without a marriage alliance between HT and EofY. The main benefit would have been that he may have allowed HT's return as a reward for her assistance. Also, HT may have been given an important role, plus perhaps more land and a more important title, but that is speculative and Buckingham could have given the same and probably more. Stanley was unlikely to have benefited personally from EV, but would have from HT and possibly Buckingham.
Could it have been possible that MB would have been content with Buckingham as King and Henry's guaranteed return? If so, would the EofY alliance have been of any use? Did she only consider HT after it had all gone wrong for Buckingham?
Also, if Stanley murdered the Princes, when did he do it? If it was in the Tower in 1483 while Stanley was Constable, Richard would have found out. He would have arranged for their removal first, but even then Richard would have probably known where they were. If he was responsible, the murder is more likely to have been committed shortly after Bosworth.)

Morton and Bray: Whatever contact they may have had with the Woodvilles, they seem to have been Lancastrian at heart, and closer to MB.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Nico

Re your point about MB supporters at Bosworth I don't see any one could readily identify; again not her style. But don't forget Uncle Jasper. Quite a few of the Welsh and SW contingent had historic loyalties to him. HT probably owed him an awful lot.
I do think the Woodvilles could be quite astute at stirring old Lancastrian sympathies. After all, Jacquetta, EW's mother, had been the wife of 'Good Duke John' who still remained legendary to the older generation. I don't think it would take that much persuasion for them to say that they'd ensure that the new young king was more pliable than his father had been, or Richard was. And stirring up hate against Richard would be easy. He'd presided over the trials after Tewkesbury and the 1469 trials of Courtenay and Hungerford. Hungerford supporters feature strongly in this. H
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017, 17:17:56 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: When you look at all the possible scenarios you could almost understand why the trads just accepted the Richard was a villain myth, it was much easier and saved a lot of research.

That is right, but a such a lazy, unimaginative approach to history. Why bother writing history books if you don't explore the rich tapestry of a subject, which makes it so much more interesting.

Hilary wrote: I couldn't see MB living with someone who had disposed of the princes; that absolutely wasn't her style. I could see her being involved in a strategy to conceal them in plain sight, either here or possibly at a university overseas. This would explain how HT could be so sure that Warbeck was a pretender; because he knew where they really were.
I have noticed a bit of a resurgence of Richard as a villain with some recent publications, but Margaret Beaufort is an increasingly popular alternative for the murderer of the Princes. However, everything I have read about her character suggests that she would have stopped way short of doing anything like that, but could have been involved in their removal overseas. If Stanley moved them from the Tower after Bosworth, he may not have complied with her instructions, and I would not put it past him to lead her to believe that they were safer than they were. There are a lot of possible scenarios here too. I do find her abandonment of Stanley in 1499 to be significant, along with her increased immersion in religion with Fisher's comments about her tearful confessions. Whatever happened, I suspect the truth came out towards the end of the Warbeck affair (possibly at Hedingham Castle), and she realized that whatever she had organized with Stanley had resulted in tragedy. Even if unintentional and indirect on her part, it may have weighed heavily on her conscience.
Nico
FWIW, I just finished watching The White Princess (spoiler alert if anyone is still watching on catch up), and wondered what poor MB's ghost would make of her depiction as the deranged serial killer of The Princes, Jasper Tudor and PW's son, all for Henry who ends up strangling her in this very alternative 'historical' melodrama. Nevertheless, she may have preferred the Disney wicked queen depiction, which was improvement on the twitchy religious nut of The White Queen. Overall, this sexed up version of PG had a better dramatic pace than WQ and doesn't pretend to be anything other than light entertainment. Enjoyable enough if you don't take it too seriously, or expect historical reality - a bit like The Tudors, but I would love to see a drama that does justice to HT and MB. I don't think MB would have got as far as she did without a good deal of charisma, courage and credibility.


On Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 10:13:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I couldn't see MB living with someone who had disposed of the princes; that absolutely wasn't her style. I could see her being involved in a strategy to conceal them in plain sight, either here or possibly at a university overseas. This would explain how HT could be so sure that Warbeck was a pretender; because he knew where they really were.
Just a thought? H
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017, 13:27:11 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:The only thing I would quibble with in post is the idea that, in 1483, Margaret Beaufort was angling to make her son king. I most certainly could be mistaken, but I believe she was doing what she'd been doing for over a decade, trying to get Henry back in England without and conditions being placed on his return. It appears to me that, at that point in time anyway, both Margaret and Morton did have something to gain from helping to return Edward V to the throne. Margaret would get her son back and Morton would likely become the major player in national affairs that he, seemingly, felt was his due. Presuming the rebellion was successful, it would be followed by the usual attainders, thus removing a goodly number of the nobility, both upper and lesser, from possible employment by the new regime.

I can't be sure either when Henry Tudor emerged as a viable Lancastrian claimant or what Margaret Beaufort initially intended for him, although I always suspected that she had it in mind when she started negotiating the marriage of HT and EofY. I think this was in the early stages of Buckingham's rebellion (around August/September 1483), but this could have simply been a step favouring HT's return, while cementing a strong Woodville link in event of the restoration of Edward V.
As far as I know, the interests of the plotters if Edward V was Kingwere :
Woodvilles: They already dominated his council (along with some inlaws). Although Anthony and Richard Grey were dead, Edward, Lionel and Richard Woodville would have dominated Edward V, along with the Marquis of Dorset.

Duke of Buckingham: His wife was a Woodville, and his children first cousins of EV. He may have been well favoured under him. I always thought that since he was her nephew MB had persuaded him to push his claim, but could Catherine Woodville have persuaded him that he and their children would benefit more from EV than Richard, so he joined them in the early stages? It would have only been a matter of time before Richard discovered his betrayal, but he may have realized that he wouldn't have gained as much as he thought from the Woodville clique, so he pushed his own claim - which would have favoured MB more. This may have given him the motivation to murder the Princes.
Margaret Beaufort and Lord Stanley: MB didn't have anything to gain from Edward V and the Woodvilles without a marriage alliance between HT and EofY. The main benefit would have been that he may have allowed HT's return as a reward for her assistance. Also, HT may have been given an important role, plus perhaps more land and a more important title, but that is speculative and Buckingham could have given the same and probably more. Stanley was unlikely to have benefited personally from EV, but would have from HT and possibly Buckingham.
Could it have been possible that MB would have been content with Buckingham as King and Henry's guaranteed return? If so, would the EofY alliance have been of any use? Did she only consider HT after it had all gone wrong for Buckingham?
Also, if Stanley murdered the Princes, when did he do it? If it was in the Tower in 1483 while Stanley was Constable, Richard would have found out. He would have arranged for their removal first, but even then Richard would have probably known where they were. If he was responsible, the murder is more likely to have been committed shortly after Bosworth.)

Morton and Bray: Whatever contact they may have had with the Woodvilles, they seem to have been Lancastrian at heart, and closer to MB.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Nico

That is the problem Hilary for hundreds of years the story has been that Richard was a villain and had always been aiming at the throne. Tudor propaganda made sure that this was firmly fixed in peoples minds. Personally I don't think that Shakespeare intended to make Richard a villain. I tend to go with the theory that he was getting at Burleigh and the Tudor dynasty and having a bit of a laugh at their propaganda. Then along came lots of so called historians who couldn't find any evidence to the contrary and hey presto the myths are born.

Doug wrote:

"To be honest, we don't even know how involved Margaret was in the run-up to the events of 1485. It would have been illegal for her to send any money to Henry, and the reports of Henry's financial state that we do have suggests she wasn't able to, whatever her inclinations. She does seem to have used her contacts in Henry's favor whenever she could but, once again, I'm not certain how much of that was initiated by her and how much was in response to any surreptitious contacts she may have had with her son/his supporters."

Carol responds:

We do have her attainder for 1483, so we at least know what she was doing then. I can't find the whole thing anywhere. but here is a patched-together version from various sources, which anyone with better information is welcoe to correct:
conspired, confederated, and committed treason" [against the King by]...

Forasmuch as Margaret Countess of Richmond, Mother to the king's great Rebel and Traitor, Henry Earl of Richmond, hath of late conspired, confeder[at]ed, and committed high Treason against our sovereign lord the king Richard the Third, in diverse and sundry wises, [such as] sending messages, writings, and tokens to the said Henry; desiring him to come into this realm and make war against our sovereign lord [Richard]. Also the said countess made chevisance [raised loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this realm. . . . Yet nevertheless, our said Sovereign lord, of his grace especial, remembering the good and faithful service that Thomas lord Stanley hath done & and for his sake, remitteth and will forbear the great punishment of attainder of the said countess, that she or any other so doing hath deserved."

I suspect that through her agents (e.g., Reggie Bray and Christopher Urswick), she continued to do much the same things after her house arrest, possibly with Lord Stanley's knowledge and consent. Once the rumor had been spread (whether or not she had anything to do with originating or spreading it), the only change would be her motive for getting her son home.

Vergil might be more helpful than usual here:

"And she [Margaret], being a wyse woman, after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen, began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth, yf yt might chaunce the bloode of king Henry the Sixth and of king Edward to be intermenglyd by affynytie" through the marriage of HT and EoY.

But setting aside the biases that distort his version of these events, he may well have events out of order as well. He seems to think that Henry was aiming at the crown from the moment of Edward IV's death and he has *Buckingham* suggest the marriage at almost the same time that Margaret thought of it. I agree with you, though, that the plan to have them marry had been suggested long before EV's deposition while she was still thinking in terms of a restored earldom (Henry's reward for helping the Woodvilles against the Protector and later for helping them restore EV--or so she would lead EW to think.)

Anyway, Vergil has Margaret a center of plotting from the beginning and taking advantage of the "knowledge" that the "princes" are dead (No crocodile tears for her!) and rightly shows her as a key figure in ;"Buckingham's" rebellion. Illegal or not, I suspect that she made sure that Henry got both messages and funds both before and after her house arrest. Had she been put in the Tower and denied pen and ink, the conspiracy might not have flourished so well. (If Morton had been kept in the Tower under the same conditions, it might never have begun.)

I'm not at all sure that this post is coherent. My point is simply that Margaret was definitely a key figure in the original rebellion, may have helped spread the rumor, and very probably continued in much the same role after her arrest (with her husband perhaps turning a blind eye).

Carol

Doug wrote:

"As best I remember, Richard's punishment of Margaret consisted of placing her in her husband's care. To be honest, I can't even recall if Richard levied any fines or appropriated any of her lands (even as a form of surety). Surely a sign that he felt any involvement by her in the attempt on his life was minimal?"

Carol responds:

I think my previous post included the words "conspired and imagined the death of the king" from her attainder, but that relates to the rebellion. If she was involved in the earlier plot to kill Richard when he was Lord Protector, I don't think he knew of it. At any rate, even though she had "conspired and committed high treason, especially by sending messages, writings, and tokens" to HT, because of Lord Stanley's "good and faithful service" she was not attainted. Stanley was to keep his wife "so straight with himself" that she could neither communicate with her son "nor practice anything at all" against the king, and Stanley had control of her property as well as her person, but that's all. Evidently, she continued her conspiracy to have HT marry EoY (more important to her than ever once EV was out of the picture and Henry openly declared his (flawed and partially false) claim.

There's no doubt that he underestimated MB's ambition for her son (and perhaps her ruthlessness in achieving that goal--she may have had no hand in killing Richard's nephews, but she would not have supported her son if she did not believe that the end (HT's coronation) justified the means, even if the means included regicide. But he probably thought that Stanley would and could rein her in.

I think that Richard's main reason for leniency had less to do with MB than with her husband. He relied on Stanley and wanted to keep him on his side, not to mention reward him for his role in putting down the rebellion. He needed to show trust in the man he had made his new constable.

We tend to forget that Richard's reign seemed unchallengeable at this point. He had been chosen by the Three Estates, had a successful progress during which he showed his mercy and generosity to the populace (see Langton and Rous), and put down the rebellion easily. He would soon have a very productive Parliament and persuade EW to let her daughters come out of sanctuary. It's quite possible that Stanley, who was doing well for himself, was viewing loyalty as a better option than treason at this point and Richard had every reason to think that those conditions would continue.

It was not until some six months later, when Edward of Middleham died, that things started going badly for Richard. An heirless king torn by grief with a weak, sickly wife not likely to produce another son was another matter than a strong king believing in his claim and his right, determined to bring justice to England. Once Richard's wife died, too, and he started caring enough about rumors to vehemently deny that he ever intended to marry his niece, Tudor's cause might have started looking better to Stanley, who may at that point have turned a blind eye to his wife's visitors and correspondents.

Anyway, I don't think he suspected MB of plotting *directly* against his life at any point before, during, or after "Buckingham's" rebellion, but he also trusted or wanted to trust Stanley, and he didn't see the claimless HT with his ragtag following as a real threat, especially not early in his reign before he lost his wife and son, and the crown became a bitter burden that he nevertheless must defend to the death.

For what it's worth, I think Lord Thomas would have stayed with him if he still considered Richard a strong king and the likely winner, but by April 1484 (EoM's death), he might have started reconsidering, and by March 1485 (Anne's death), he may well have been conspiring with HT (but keeping a foot in both camps).

Sorry if I strayed from the topic, but it's all tied together.

Carol

While looking at info about Reggie Bray I discovered that he had been pardoned by Richard after Buckingham's rebellion.It said that Bray acted as go between for MB and Morton and that he raised much needed funds for HT. Also he won several key gentlemen to the Tudor cause including Giles Daubeney and Richard Guildford. It said that he still continued to support Tudor after being pardoned.

Doug, Carol, Hilary

Doug wrote:

"As best I remember, Richard's punishment of Margaret consisted of placing her in her husband's care. To be honest, I can't even recall if Richard levied any fines or appropriated any of her lands (even as a form of surety). Surely a sign that he felt any involvement by her in the attempt on his life was minimal?"

Carol responds:

I think my previous post included the words "conspired and imagined the death of the king" from her attainder, but that relates to the rebellion. If she was involved in the earlier plot to kill Richard when he was Lord Protector, I don't think he knew of it. At any rate, even though she had "conspired and committed high treason, especially by sending messages, writings, and tokens" to HT, because of Lord Stanley's "good and faithful service" she was not attainted. Stanley was to keep his wife "so straight with himself" that she could neither communicate with her son "nor practice anything at all" against the king, and Stanley had control of her property as well as her person, but that's all. Evidently, she continued her conspiracy to have HT marry EoY (more important to her than ever once EV was out of the picture and Henry openly declared his (flawed and partially false) claim.

There's no doubt that he underestimated MB's ambition for her son (and perhaps her ruthlessness in achieving that goal--she may have had no hand in killing Richard's nephews, but she would not have supported her son if she did not believe that the end (HT's coronation) justified the means, even if the means included regicide. But he probably thought that Stanley would and could rein her in.

I think that Richard's main reason for leniency had less to do with MB than with her husband. He relied on Stanley and wanted to keep him on his side, not to mention reward him for his role in putting down the rebellion. He needed to show trust in the man he had made his new constable.

We tend to forget that Richard's reign seemed unchallengeable at this point. He had been chosen by the Three Estates, had a successful progress during which he showed his mercy and generosity to the populace (see Langton and Rous), and put down the rebellion easily. He would soon have a very productive Parliament and persuade EW to let her daughters come out of sanctuary. It's quite possible that Stanley, who was doing well for himself, was viewing loyalty as a better option than treason at this point and Richard had every reason to think that those conditions would continue.

It was not until some six months later, when Edward of Middleham died, that things started going badly for Richard. An heirless king torn by grief with a weak, sickly wife not likely to produce another son was another matter than a strong king believing in his claim and his right, determined to bring justice to England. Once Richard's wife died, too, and he started caring enough about rumors to vehemently deny that he ever intended to marry his niece, Tudor's cause might have started looking better to Stanley, who may at that point have turned a blind eye to his wife's visitors and correspondents.

Anyway, I don't think he suspected MB of plotting *directly* against his life at any point before, during, or after "Buckingham's" rebellion, but he also trusted or wanted to trust Stanley, and he didn't see the claimless HT with his ragtag following as a real threat, especially not early in his reign before he lost his wife and son, and the crown became a bitter burden that he nevertheless must defend to the death.

For what it's worth, I think Lord Thomas would have stayed with him if he still considered Richard a strong king and the likely winner, but by April 1484 (EoM's death), he might have started reconsidering, and by March 1485 (Anne's death), he may well have been conspiring with HT (but keeping a foot in both camps).

Sorry if I strayed from the topic, but it's all tied together.

Carol

Doug, Carol, Hilary

Doug wrote:

"As best I remember, Richard's punishment of Margaret consisted of placing her in her husband's care. To be honest, I can't even recall if Richard levied any fines or appropriated any of her lands (even as a form of surety). Surely a sign that he felt any involvement by her in the attempt on his life was minimal?"

Carol responds:

I think my previous post included the words "conspired and imagined the death of the king" from her attainder, but that relates to the rebellion. If she was involved in the earlier plot to kill Richard when he was Lord Protector, I don't think he knew of it. At any rate, even though she had "conspired and committed high treason, especially by sending messages, writings, and tokens" to HT, because of Lord Stanley's "good and faithful service" she was not attainted. Stanley was to keep his wife "so straight with himself" that she could neither communicate with her son "nor practice anything at all" against the king, and Stanley had control of her property as well as her person, but that's all. Evidently, she continued her conspiracy to have HT marry EoY (more important to her than ever once EV was out of the picture and Henry openly declared his (flawed and partially false) claim.

There's no doubt that he underestimated MB's ambition for her son (and perhaps her ruthlessness in achieving that goal--she may have had no hand in killing Richard's nephews, but she would not have supported her son if she did not believe that the end (HT's coronation) justified the means, even if the means included regicide. But he probably thought that Stanley would and could rein her in.

I think that Richard's main reason for leniency had less to do with MB than with her husband. He relied on Stanley and wanted to keep him on his side, not to mention reward him for his role in putting down the rebellion. He needed to show trust in the man he had made his new constable.

We tend to forget that Richard's reign seemed unchallengeable at this point. He had been chosen by the Three Estates, had a successful progress during which he showed his mercy and generosity to the populace (see Langton and Rous), and put down the rebellion easily. He would soon have a very productive Parliament and persuade EW to let her daughters come out of sanctuary. It's quite possible that Stanley, who was doing well for himself, was viewing loyalty as a better option than treason at this point and Richard had every reason to think that those conditions would continue.

It was not until some six months later, when Edward of Middleham died, that things started going badly for Richard. An heirless king torn by grief with a weak, sickly wife not likely to produce another son was another matter than a strong king believing in his claim and his right, determined to bring justice to England. Once Richard's wife died, too, and he started caring enough about rumors to vehemently deny that he ever intended to marry his niece, Tudor's cause might have started looking better to Stanley, who may at that point have turned a blind eye to his wife's visitors and correspondents.

Anyway, I don't think he suspected MB of plotting *directly* against his life at any point before, during, or after "Buckingham's" rebellion, but he also trusted or wanted to trust Stanley, and he didn't see the claimless HT with his ragtag following as a real threat, especially not early in his reign before he lost his wife and son, and the crown became a bitter burden that he nevertheless must defend to the death.

For what it's worth, I think Lord Thomas would have stayed with him if he still considered Richard a strong king and the likely winner, but by April 1484 (EoM's death), he might have started reconsidering, and by March 1485 (Anne's death), he may well have been conspiring with HT (but keeping a foot in both camps).

Sorry if I strayed from the topic, but it's all tied together.

Carol

"And she [Margaret], being a wyse woman, after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen, began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth, yf yt might chaunce the bloode of king Henry the Sixth and of king Edward to be intermenglyd by affynytie" through the marriage of HT and EoY.David wrote:The sequence is thus...Rumour/news of the deaths...MB with doctor instigates plot and communicates with Elizabeth Woodville...Buckingham rebels (no link at this early stage is implied with the MB plot)...Margaret's response to the newsThe passage about MB's plot is placing it in the timeline by saying it started after the news but before Buckingham's rebellion. There is nothing in the text to say that her statement about the benefits of the plot are a response to the 'news' at all - merely that it happened afterwards.
David's timeline does make sense, but I'm not sure where Buckingham fits in, because MB and EW started plotting around August and Buckingham's rebellion was in October. So, if MB began plotting after she heard the Princes were dead, then they must have died in the summer of 1483, and Croyland is wrong about them being alive and still in the Tower on September 8. If Vergil's version is correct, then it raises the likelihood that they (or one of them) died in the 'rescue attempt' in late July - which her brother, Welles was participated in. Vergil wrote more than 20 years after the events, but there is something about the wording that suggests that he may have heard this from someone who was involved at the time, most likely HT or MB. If it was MB, perhaps she let something slip.
The other question raised is who was MB actually supporting at the outset of the plot. My suspicion is that it may have been Buckingham all along, and the plan for HT would be simply for his return. Is there any detailed information on Buckingham's early life and his relationship with MB and her husband, Henry Stafford? After his father died when he was three, he was a ward of the crown (Henry VI, then Edward IV), but he probably had close contact with his father's family, which centered around his uncle, Henry Stafford, which would have brought him into contact with MB from a very early age. MB rarely saw HT, even when he was in the care of Jasper Tudor and the Herberts, so could Buckingham have been a surrogate son for a childless couple, whose family was dwindling in the male line? Buckingham was also a Beaufort on his mother's side, another reason why she may have been very fond of him. If MB and Buckingham were really close, that would increase the likelihood that she was pushing for Buckingham at the early stages and intended for him to be King, with HT simply returning and restored to his earldom. Furthermore, Buckingham had an undisputed claim to the throne and MB didn't know HT personally, so she would not have known anything about his abilities as a potential king.

Since, MB had more to gain from Buckingham than Edward V, while the Woodvilles may have been useful allies at the outset, they would have to be pushed aside to make way for Buckingham at some point. If what Vergil is saying is true, by the time MB and EW started the marriage arrangements for HT and EofY, the Princes were already dead, so it would have been all about Buckingham from then on, but EW and the Woodvilles wouldn't have known that.
Nico




On Monday, 18 December 2017, 22:00:40 GMT, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Carol, Hilary

Doug wrote:

"As best I remember, Richard's punishment of Margaret consisted of placing her in her husband's care. To be honest, I can't even recall if Richard levied any fines or appropriated any of her lands (even as a form of surety). Surely a sign that he felt any involvement by her in the attempt on his life was minimal?"

Carol responds:

I think my previous post included the words "conspired and imagined the death of the king" from her attainder, but that relates to the rebellion. If she was involved in the earlier plot to kill Richard when he was Lord Protector, I don't think he knew of it. At any rate, even though she had "conspired and committed high treason, especially by sending messages, writings, and tokens" to HT, because of Lord Stanley's "good and faithful service" she was not attainted. Stanley was to keep his wife "so straight with himself" that she could neither communicate with her son "nor practice anything at all" against the king, and Stanley had control of her property as well as her person, but that's all. Evidently, she continued her conspiracy to have HT marry EoY (more important to her than ever once EV was out of the picture and Henry openly declared his (flawed and partially false) claim.

There's no doubt that he underestimated MB's ambition for her son (and perhaps her ruthlessness in achieving that goal--she may have had no hand in killing Richard's nephews, but she would not have supported her son if she did not believe that the end (HT's coronation) justified the means, even if the means included regicide. But he probably thought that Stanley would and could rein her in.

I think that Richard's main reason for leniency had less to do with MB than with her husband. He relied on Stanley and wanted to keep him on his side, not to mention reward him for his role in putting down the rebellion. He needed to show trust in the man he had made his new constable.

We tend to forget that Richard's reign seemed unchallengeable at this point. He had been chosen by the Three Estates, had a successful progress during which he showed his mercy and generosity to the populace (see Langton and Rous), and put down the rebellion easily. He would soon have a very productive Parliament and persuade EW to let her daughters come out of sanctuary. It's quite possible that Stanley, who was doing well for himself, was viewing loyalty as a better option than treason at this point and Richard had every reason to think that those conditions would continue.

It was not until some six months later, when Edward of Middleham died, that things started going badly for Richard. An heirless king torn by grief with a weak, sickly wife not likely to produce another son was another matter than a strong king believing in his claim and his right, determined to bring justice to England. Once Richard's wife died, too, and he started caring enough about rumors to vehemently deny that he ever intended to marry his niece, Tudor's cause might have started looking better to Stanley, who may at that point have turned a blind eye to his wife's visitors and correspondents.

Anyway, I don't think he suspected MB of plotting *directly* against his life at any point before, during, or after "Buckingham's" rebellion, but he also trusted or wanted to trust Stanley, and he didn't see the claimless HT with his ragtag following as a real threat, especially not early in his reign before he lost his wife and son, and the crown became a bitter burden that he nevertheless must defend to the death.

For what it's worth, I think Lord Thomas would have stayed with him if he still considered Richard a strong king and the likely winner, but by April 1484 (EoM's death), he might have started reconsidering, and by March 1485 (Anne's death), he may well have been conspiring with HT (but keeping a foot in both camps).

Sorry if I strayed from the topic, but it's all tied together.

Carol

Just to put the cat among the pidgeons, quite a few years ago I definitely read that " ever after Tewkesbury MB considered her son to be the Lancastrian heir". The only problem is I can't remember where I read this. I thought it was Charles Oman's" Warwick the Kingmaker" but I checked and couldn't find anything, though I have to say that I didn't re-read it just scanned it. I also checked other books that I read around the same time. Cora Scofield, Mary Evans and I think Peter Hammond's "Battle of Tewkesbury" but no luck. Has anyone else ever read that information?

Just to put the cat among the pidgeons, quite a few years ago I definitely read that " ever after Tewkesbury MB considered her son to be the Lancastrian heir". The only problem is I can't remember where I read this. I thought it was Charles Oman's" Warwick the Kingmaker" but I checked and couldn't find anything, though I have to say that I didn't re-read it just scanned it. I also checked other books that I read around the same time. Cora Scofield, Mary Evans and I think Peter Hammond's "Battle of Tewkesbury" but no luck. Has anyone else ever read that information?